POVERTY AND REEFS

VOLUME 1 A GLOBAL OVERVIEW

IMM Ltd

E m m a W h i t t i n g h a m , J o c k C a m p b e l l a n d P h i l i p To w n s l e y

IMM Ltd

IMM Ltd Innovation Centre Rennes Drive Exeter University Campus Exeter EX4 4RN United Kingdom http://www.ex.ac.uk/imm

DFID Department for International Development 1 Palace Street London SW1E 5HE United Kingdom http://www.dfid.gov.uk/

IOC/UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO 1 Rue Miollis 75732 Paris Cedex 15 France http://www.ioc.unesco.org

POVERTY AND REEFS
VOLUME 1: A GLOBAL OVERVIEW
Emma Whittingham Jock Campbell Philip Townsley

i

© 2003 IMM Ltd, Exeter, UK Typeset by Exe Valley Dataset Ltd, Exeter, UK Project Management by Swales & Willis, Exeter, UK Printed in France. Reference number: IOC/UNESCO/INF-1188, Poverty and Reefs, Volume 1: Global Overview, Volume 2: Case Studies. 260pp. Citation: “Whittingham, E., Campbell, J. and Townsley, P. (2003). Poverty and Reefs, DFID–IMM–IOC/UNESCO, 260pp.” Printed and distributed free by: Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO 1, Rue Miollis, 75015 Paris, France. Tel: +33 1 45 68 10 10, Fax: +33 1 45 68 58 12 Website: http://ioc.unesco.org, Email: IOCMailService@unesco.org DISCLAIMER The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariats of UNESCO and IOC concerning the legal status of any country or territory, or its authorities, or concerning the elimination of the frontiers of any country or territory. This document is an output from a project funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing countries. The views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID. COPYRIGHT All rights reserved. This information may be freely used and copied for educational and other non-commercial purposes, provided that any reproduction of data be accompanied by an acknowledgement of IMM as the source (© IMM). This does not apply to the pages and images with explicitly reserved reproduction right: © followed by the source and the year of first circulation. Reproduction of the latter requires prior authorization from the author.

ii

CONTENTS
FIGURES, TABLES AND BOXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 GLOBAL OVERVIEW: POVERTY AND CORAL REEFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 The global extent of coral reefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Coral reef stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Numbers of people dependent on reefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Characteristics of reef-dependent poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Regional distribution of coral reefs and poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AN OVERVIEW OF REEF-RELATED BENEFIT FLOWS TO THE POOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Contribution of coral reefs to the resources of the poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Enhancing interactions with direct influencing factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 The ability to cope with indirect influencing factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHANGING BENEFIT FLOWS AND INCREASING VULNERABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Causes of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Impacts of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Changing livelihood strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Vulnerability to future change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTERVENTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Responding to changing livelihoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Preventing reef decline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Diversifying and enhancing livelihood opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Strengthening livelihood support systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DISCUSSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Overview of the current situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Principles for addressing poverty-related reef issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Policy considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................................................................... v vii ix xi xv 1 1 1 3 4 4 5 11 12 12 12 26 33 36 38 38 38 41 45 45 46 48 48 48 48 57 58 58 59 59 61 62 62 63 68 69

BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

2

3

4

5

ANNEX 1 COUNTRY OUTLINES OF POVERTY AND REEFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOTES REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

IMM Ltd G – Outrigger canoes and fisher. James Oliver. Fiji. Mozambique. Vanuatu. Maldives. Kusi Lda iv . Jock Campbell.Cover photo credits Volume 1 A B D D C C D D C D D E E F G E E G G A – Live fish cages. India. Gulf of Mannar. ReefBase F – Fishing boat. IMM Ltd E – Woman reef gleaning. SEAMARC C – Outrigger canoe. James Wilson. Philip Townsley. James Oliver. Tomas LeBerre. IMM Ltd D – Women cleaning nets. Mozambique. ReefBase B – Basket of parrot fish. Emma Whittingham. Indonesia.

Indonesia Cast netting in a shallow lagoon.FIGURES. Philippines Small-scale fishing craft. Philippines Fish trap secured with coral pieces. Indonesia Fish for sale at a local market. Gulf of Mannar. India A widow and trader sorting the crab catch. TABLES AND BOXES FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Global distribution of coral reefs Proportion of population living on the coast Number of people living within 100 km of the coast Key categories of reef users Coral reef stakeholders 1990 global distribution of people living on less than 1US$ a day Reef-dependent livelihoods Pole and line tuna fishing in Lakshadweep. India Coral rubble and gastropod shells used in house construction in Northern Mozambique Coral harvest. Gulf of Mannar. Philippines Women reef gleaning. Mozambique Local boat construction. Philippines Women cleaning crab nets. Indonesia Women sorting trash fish. Fiji Children reef gleaning. India Fisherman with sea urchin catch. India Factors contributing to changing access to reef benefits Live fish cages. Indonesia Bleached coral. Philippines Seaweed Farming in Northern Mozambique Components of livelihood security for poor reef stakeholders 2 2 3 3 4 5 13 14 17 17 17 18 19 20 20 22 23 24 28 28 31 32 33 39 40 41 42 44 45 48 Regional distribution of coral reefs Regional distribution of reefs and poverty Eastern Africa country poverty and reef statistics South Asia country poverty and reef statistics Southeast Asia country poverty and reef statistics Western Caribbean country poverty and reef statistics Eastern Caribbean country poverty and reef statistics South Pacific country poverty and reef statistics Fisheries productivity estimates of coral reef ecosystems Dependence of Pacific Island households on fishing for subsistence Different degrees of participation 1 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 21 51 v . Gulf of Mannar. Indonesia Women using a net in a shallow lagoon. Indonesia Dried sea cucumber. Sri Lanka Impacts of changing access to reef benefits on livelihood outcomes and strategies Dynamite fishing.

India Declining food security in the Dominican Republic The exclusion of local reef fishers from marine protected areas Conflicts in Kenya over the Diani Marine Reserve Changes in fish utilisation and impacts on the poor in India Climate change and coastal livelihoods Community-based management in Portland Bight.BOXES Box 1 Box 2 Box 3 Box 4 Box 5 Box 6 Box 7 Box 8 Box 9 Box 10 Box 11 Box 12 Box 13 Box 14 Box 15 Box 16 Box 17 Box 18 Box 19 Box 20 Box 21 Box 22 Box 23 Box 24 Box 25 Box 26 Box 27 Box 28 Box 29 Box 30 Box 31 Box 32 Box 33 Box 34 Box 35 Box 36 Box 37 Box 38 Box 39 Box 40 Box 41 Box 42 Box 43 Box 44 Box 45 Box 46 Consumers of coral reef products Global distribution of numbers involved in fisheries production Characteristics of coastal poverty Examples of the diversity of exploited reef species Reefs. cheap and locally available technology to access reef resources Shell money Exchange and barter of reef products Medicinal values of reef products Examples of local knowledge of reef resources Communal exploitation of reef resources Examples of beliefs associated with reef areas A Fijian legend The recognition of indigenous communities in Torres Strait Traditional management systems The Fisheries Union of the Gulf of Mannar. Jamaica The success of MPAs in sustaining reef benefits for the poor Local participation in fisheries monitoring in East Africa East Africa socio-economic monitoring Coral reef forum in South Asia The Marine Aquarium Council Local involvement in coral reef legislation Examples of economic valuations of coral reefs The Better Banana Project: controlling erosion and pollution from banana plantations Providing alternative livelihoods to coral miners in Sri Lanka Sustainable livelihoods enhancement and diversification 3 5 6 14 15 15 16 16 18 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 30 31 32 34 35 35 36 37 40 41 42 43 43 44 46 47 49 50 51 53 54 54 55 55 56 57 58 vi . India Using seamarks or betia for navigation in Kiribati Reef boundaries of kavebu territories in Northern New Caledonia Examples of the use of reef species as tools and ornaments Multiple fisheries-based oppportunities in the Gulf of Mannar. India The male and female seas of the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay. India Examples of successful coral reef eco-tourism Externally driven coral reef fisheries Mass coral bleaching and global warming impacts on coral reefs Declining reef benefits in the Gulf of Mannar. lagoons and seagrass beds in the Gulf of Mannar. India Using simple. India Reef resources as a sink for migrants in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. India Reef gleaning Seasonal stability of reefs during rough weather Reef resources as an alternative to agriculture in Darumba. Northern Mozambique Coral reefs as a safety net for female-headed households in the Gulf of Mannar.

We hope that this association will stimulate further action. strengthening our understanding to find new approaches to integrate poverty and environmental concerns in support of sustainable and equitable development. they are fragile and respond quickly to adverse pressures. sharing of experiences and discussion. Whilst we all agree that coral reefs need to be protected.PREFACE We live in a complex world where change is happening at ever increasing speeds and nothing can be dealt with in isolation from the forces that affects it. we also need to improve our understanding of the complex relationships between the poor and reefs and to ensure that conservation is carried out in equitable ways. These benefits are complex and we are only just beginning to fully appreciate their relationships with and importance for the poor. Recently this has been widely studied and reported. many people depend upon reefs for their very survival. improving our perception of the significance of reefs. The poor have much to teach us about the environment that they live in and we can benefit greatly from working in partnership with them. They benefit. Much attention has been given to coral reef conservation. established by DFID and IOC/UNESCO. who depend on coral reefs. but at times this has taken place with the exclusion of the local people. if we are to achieve our common goal of equitable and sustainable development it is now imperative that greater emphasis is placed on the increasing inequalities and importance of human and social development. While we may value coral reefs as an important part of our global environment. We hope it will contribute to the global debate on coral reefs and help to open new and more inclusive avenues to work with the poor and vulnerable who depend on coral reefs for their livelihood. As acknowledged at the WSSD. they have intrinsic value and contribute to local and global economies. Coral reefs are one of the early indicators of this change. Despite significant progress in implementing many of the principles and strategies outlined in Agenda 21. the promise of sustainable development remains unfulfilled. This mixed state of affairs was dramatically captured by the Millennium Declaration. Increasing globalisation has meant that what happens in one place of the world affects other parts far away. spiritual and cultural aspects of their lives. These pressures are increasing and coral reefs are coming under greater threat. economic. The study was commissioned by DFID and research in South Asia was carried out in cooperation with local counterparts and communities who are part of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) South Asia node. which places poverty alleviation at the top of the agenda in International Development. The study also represents an important collaboration bringing together the poverty and developmental focus of DFID with the scientific-based environmental work of IOC/UNESCO. These people include some of the poorest in the world and they derive many benefits from coral reefs that enable them to sustain their impoverished livelihoods in spite of great difficulties. Coral reefs are not just valuable as indicators of change. Poverty and Reefs represents a significant milestone in our understanding of this relationship. Climate change is one example of the outcome of these global forces. social. Their decline is a warning to us all. but also in many other ways that contribute to the physical. has been marked by the growth of increasing disparities between the worlds of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. Neil MacPherson Senior Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Adviser DFID Patricio Bernal Executive Secretary IOC/UNESCO vii . The decade that has taken us from the adoption of Agenda 21 in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to the convening in Johannesburg of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. not just from the food the reef provides. which threatens to disrupt and alter much of the world around us.

DFID Senior Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Adviser and Mr Chris Price. Advisory Group members who provided useful insights included James Spurgeon. who spent much of their valuable time contributing their knowledge and experiences to the research teams. Dr Bob Pomeroy. CARESS) and Mozambique (Kusi Lda and IDPPE) who modified their schedules to fit our deadlines and worked so hard on the case studies. and Dr John Munro. DFID Rural Livelihoods Adviser provided guidance and advice throughout. the Regional Coordinator for the South Asia Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network provided useful suggestions and experience from Sri Lanka and the Maldives.M. and provided copies of numerous reports from GCRMN South Asia’s extensive library. Dr R. whose significant contributions and unique perspective to understanding the complex relationships of people and reefs have influenced the way many of us view. Innocent Wanyoni and other CORDIO team members in Kenya provided valuable insights into their work which complemented the other studies. Thanks and recognition also go to the many poor reef-dependent people at the case study locations. Ranaweera Banda. Tim McClanaham and his colleagues in Kenya also kindly gave us access to their library and provided copies of references. David Obura. Mr Neil MacPherson. ix .ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank DFID for commissioning this work and for providing IMM with the funds and support to implement it. IMM would also like to thank the collaborating partners in India (SPEECH. The authors would also like to acknowledge the late Bob Johannes. both through his prolific writings on the subject of reef communities and through the useful suggestions. His contributions have been invaluable in undertaking this study. Ole Vestergaard from IOC/UNESCO also provided useful comments and insights in the editing process of the reports. Ben Cattermoul. understand and work with reef communities. we would like to thank Swales & Willis. ideas and contacts he provided when he reviewed the early stages of the global literature study. our Publishing Agent. Thanks also go to Dr EV Muley of the Ministry of Environment and Forests in Delhi for advising and guiding us on the India work. Finally. who in a short space of time converted our Word document reports into the publication presented here. ANET.

Science and Society Convention on Biological Diversity Caribbean Coastal Area Management Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Customary Marine Tenure Coral Reef Degradation of the Indian Ocean Department for International Development (UK Government) Indian Department of Ocean Development Environmental Impact Assessment Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations Great Barrier Reef Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network Regional node of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network in India. Maldives and Sri Lanka Gross Domestic Product Global Environment Facility Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve International Coral Reef Action Network International Coral Reef Initiative Indian Coral Reef Monitoring Network Integrated Coastal Zone Management Instituto Nacional de Desenvolvimentoda da Pesca de Pequena Escala (National Institute for the Development of Small Scale Fishing. Tanzania Reef Livelihoods Assessment Project funded by DFID.NOMENCLATURE ANET BBP CARESS CBD CCAM CITES CMT CORDIO DFID DOD EIA FAO GBR GCRMN GCRMN South Asia GDP GEF GOMMBR ICRAN ICRI ICRMN ICZM IDPPE IDT IFAD IOC IPCC IUCN MPA NGO OECS PBFMC RIPS RLA SCL The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Environment Team Better Banana Programme The Centre for Action Research on Environment. implemented by IMM The DFID-funded Sustainable Coastal Livelihoods Project implemented by IMM xi . Mozambique) International Development Targets International Fund for Agricultural Development Intergovernmental Oceanographic Organisation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change International Union for the Conservation of Nature Marine Protected Area Non-Governmental Organisation Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States Portland Bight Fisheries Management Council Rural Integrated Project Support.

Science and Culture Organisation United States World Bank World Resources Institute World Summit on Sustainable Development xii .SLA SPEECH SPREP TPDF UNCED UNDP UNEP UNESCO US WB WRI WSSD Sustainable Livelihoods Approach The Society for People’s Education and Economic Change South Pacific Regional Environment Programme Tanzanian People’s Defense Force United Nations Conference on Environment and Development United Nations Development Programme United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Education.

It is also hoped that the work will contribute to wider global policy development in the area of poverty and reefs. India: CARESS (The Centre for Action Research on Environment.BACKGROUND BACKGROUND TO THE REEF LIVELIHOODS ASSESSMENT PROJECT The Reef Livelihoods Assessment (RLA) Project was funded by DFID UK and managed and implemented on their behalf by IMM Ltd of Exeter UK. if any. This research is presented in four case study reports. incorporating all aspects of peoples’ lives and using value systems defined by the poor themselves. The teams from the partner organisations received training from IMM in the use of the RLA field method and the field work was then co-ordinated and the reports harmonised by IMM staff. particularly subsistence fishing. Mozambique: Kusi Lda and IDPPE Gulf of Mannar. equity and security’. Reefs are mainly found in developing countries where a substantial proportion of the population is living in poverty. India: SPEECH (The Society for People’s Education and Economic Change) Andaman Islands. have assessed the wider value of coral reefs at a local livelihoods level. ‘Halving World Poverty by 2015: economic growth. as well as a picture of the nature and extent of reef benefits to all aspects of the livelihoods of the poor. India: ANET (The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Environmental Team) Lakshadweep Islands. It will also contribute more widely to economic and policy research targeting coral reefs and coastal communities. very few valuations. The method was then applied in case studies at two further sites in South Asia and one in East Africa. This was used during the project to develop a wider context of value. as well as how and why these benefits have changed over time. This knowledge is intended to contribute to informing DFID’s future policy on support for reefs and coastal communities as a strategy for poverty alleviation. and avoid the costs associated with coral reef destruction. or the value of coral reefs to coastal poor people. more qualitative. However. which recognises that the livelihoods of poor people must be at the centre of any strategy for poverty reduction. the project developed and tested an appropriate field method together with a partner organisation at the first case study location in the Gulf of Mannar. The International Development Target (IDT) of reducing poverty by a half by 2015 is reflected in DFID’s Target Strategy Paper. This provides a much broader understanding of the benefits derived from coral reefs. Combining this overview with the SLA. Progress and suggestions were posted on the project website (www.ac. value of coral reefs to vulnerable coastal communities. Dependence on coral reefs. The aim of the RLA project was to use a livelihoods approach to assess the wider.htm). The case studies were implemented by partner organisations as follows: • • • • Cabo Delgado.uk/imm/ rla. The Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) provides a way of understanding both the complexity and holistic nature of the lives of vulnerable coastal communities. This research provided an understanding of the nature of poverty amongst reef dependent communities.ex. The RLA project work started with a broad overview of the literature associated with reefs and poverty and this was distributed to an Internet Advisory Group for comments. This information is critical for the development of policy regarding support for coral reefs and coastal communities as a strategy of poverty alleviation. Science and Society) (desk study only) (All partner organisations in India are part of the GCRMN South Asia network and have been involved in regional socio-economic training and monitoring activities) IMM also worked with CORDIO in Kenya to incorporate examples of their work into the report. economic valuation has been used at national levels as a tool to demonstrate that sustainable use and conservation of coral reefs can generate economic benefits. The project began in November 2001 and was completed by November 2002. and how they may be sustained. in the pursuit of coral reef management and sustainable development. is often quoted as being vital to the livelihoods of many poor indigenous coastal communities but what that dependency consists of is unclear. To influence policy-makers. xiii . enhanced or substituted for in the future. India.

the poverty and people focus shifts the attention away from the reef resource and considers interventions in terms of how they have benefited poor reef stakeholders. This chapter is based on an analysis of benefit flows using the sustainable livelihoods framework and includes much of the RLA case study results. This provides a different perspective from that normally encountered. The overview approaches the debate from an entirely people and poverty perspective. It is also an orientation. focusing on poor reef stakeholders and areas where poverty and reefs coincide. as described above. we attempt to view reefs in terms of the poor who are dependent on reefs for their livelihoods.The RLA outputs are presented in two volumes. xiv . which primarily considers interventions in terms of how they have benefited the health of the reef resource. Indeed. Chapter one provides an outline of the global and regional distribution of coral reefs and the different types of people who depend upon reefs. This is not to discredit or diminish the good intentions of many interventions focused on the reef resource and its conservation. Chapter three reviews the changes that are occurring in the benefit flows to the poor from the reef and briefly considers why these are occurring. Chapter five discusses the findings from the previous four chapters and evolves some principles for addressing poverty-related reef issues. It does not attempt to provide solutions. in terms of how that cost impacts on the lives of the poor. which is not entirely new in the wider context of sustainable and pro-poor development. In doing so it uses existing information combined with new insights developed from the RLA case study research and presents it in a way which some readers may find challenges their current view point. The document is presented in five chapters. in response to a specific demand for information. but rather suggests a new orientation for the future. for this reason the ecological aspects and consequences of change are not considered in any detail. Again. Chapter four briefly reviews some of the different reef-related interventions that now affect the lives of reef-dependent poor and briefly assesses their impact on the poor. Once again. how changes in the reef have impacted the lives of the poor and how the poor have responded and coped with these changes. In the Global Overview. is based on an overview of literature and experience on the value of reef-related benefit flows to poor coastal communities and is illustrated with examples from the case studies. Its focus is on the positive benefits which the reef provides to all aspects of the livelihoods of the poor. Specific policy guidance for DFID was provided in separate reports and only the more generic aspects of that guidance are included in this overview. which contributed to informing a policy decision within DFID UK and it is hoped that this understanding may inform discussion more widely. is a compilation of the four case study reports. The second. the first and current. in the following chapter. For most people view reefs from a predominantly resource-based perspective and they understand the people who interact with and use reefs in terms of what impact their activities have on reefs and how harmful impacts can be controlled or minimized to ensure reef conservation. Volume 1: A Global Overview. Chapter two is the main section of the report and provides an overview of the different reef-related benefit flows to the poor. one which will require further support and work to achieve. the poverty–reef debate has much to learn from people-focused pro-poor sustainable development elsewhere. It does not consider the cost of those benefits on the status of the reef resource. It also considers wider responses to reef issues and how these interventions have impacted on the lives of the poor. BACKGROUND TO VOLUME 1: A GLOBAL OVERVIEW Volume 1: A Global Overview is intended as a discussion document to stimulate and open up the debate surrounding poverty and coral reefs. this aspect is dealt with. how the reefs benefit the poor. It was produced. these changes are considered in terms of their impacts on the lives of the poor and how the poor have responded to change. It also looks at the policy implications of the findings and suggests some ways forward. Volume 2. but it is to take a different view point.

From this. This change in thinking has also been encouraged by the shifting priorities of international donor agencies and governments towards poverty alleviation. new approaches to sustainable livelihoods. but also to regional intergovernmental and NGO agencies concerned with these issues. Coral reef ecosystems are extremely sensitive to change and easily suffer from disturbance. However. but in general the poor are finding that their livelihoods are being stressed more than most and they are the least able to respond. At the meso-level there is a need for substantial capacity building in coastal community development and poverty reduction approaches. As highlighted at the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002. The policy formulation and implementation environment surrounding reef-dependent people is only partially focused on those people. At the micro-level there is much to be done in understanding the nature of reef-dependent poverty. There is a growing willingness to accept this kind of reform but a lack of coordinated understanding about how to achieve it. xv . Reef degradation is removing many of the benefits on which the poor depend. and reef management can begin to be developed. There is a considerable short-fall in the required skills. awareness. consensus building. The impact of these changes varies between different stakeholders. livelihood enhancement. use and manage their reefs. some are currently being developed and others exist but need to be brought together and applied to reef issues. attitudes and institutional orientation required to respond effectively to reef-related poverty. climate change threatens further loss. Support at the macro-level is also required to reflect the interconnected nature of reef problems and to deal with the interstitial and dispersed nature of reef-dependent poverty. Many of the approaches that need to be applied have still to be developed. At the macro-level there is a need for a change in the global policy framework that shifts the focus from reef conservation to the sustainable and equitable use of reef ecosystems where poverty reduction is a central theme rather than a means towards an end. These need to be based on a much better understanding of the issues facing the reef-dependent poor. and well-meaning polices aimed at conserving threatened reefs are often excluding the poor from access to benefit flows. poverty reduction. the ability of the reefs to provide income and food security and buffer seasonal and periodic hardships is being eroded. There is an urgent need for guidance and support amongst coral reef practitioners. However. The implications for International Development Targets are serious in terms of both people moving back into poverty. policy reform and the uptake of a new array of policy instruments. there is a growing awareness of this deficiency and recognition that coral reef conservation cannot meet its desired objectives without better consideration of poverty issues and the sustainable livelihoods of the reef-dependent poor. Unless this is achieved in the near future many poor people will confront greater levels of hardship than they have faced before and many coastal communities above the poverty line will start to fall into poverty. the main emphasis is on reef conservation. and an increasing trend in the loss of reef-based environmental resources. The poor have even more to teach us about the way they live with. Many millions of these people are poor and for them the coral reef represents an important resource which contributes to many aspects of their livelihood. This study has shown that there is already a large amount of information out there but this has rarely been brought together to provide a cohesive body of knowledge that can inform policy. failure to address International Development Targets will seriously undermine our ability to achieve sustainable development. This requires a large degree of awareness raising. There is a need for a major drive to re-orient the current approaches to reefs and reef-dependent people. Many of the key international institutions and initiatives concerned with coral reefs are those whose primary objective is nature conservation. This applies not only to governments in countries where reef dependence is an issue.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A diversity of different people worldwide depend on coral reefs for many different reasons. agencies and initiatives to assist the changes needed to address poverty and reef-related issues more effectively.

parts of South Asia. 1.CHAPTER 1 GLOBAL OVERVIEW: POVERTY AND CORAL REEFS Source: John McManus..1 This overview of poverty and coral reefs first looks at the global extent of coral reefs and where they are concentrated.. South Pacific. the extent of interaction with reefs is likely to be greatest.reefbase. see Figure 1). of which 284 300 km2 occur in near-surface shallow waters close to the coastline of over 100 countries (Bryant et al. 1 . 2001. 1998. Where significant proportions of the coastline are bordered by coral reefs. In terms of the relative importance of the coast to people living in these regions. Furthermore..2 23. Spalding et al. but also where those reefs are around the world. 2000 dependent on coral reefs will also be high.Atlantic Brazil Bermuda 1 2 (km2) 1 Reef area Proportion of coastline bordered by reef (%) 2 26.7 35. it goes on to discuss the numbers of reef-dependent people around the world and describes each major region where poverty and reefs interact.6 20.5 Data for shallow reef areas from Spalding et al.2 THE GLOBAL EXTENT OF CORAL REEFS Coral reefs are found in tropical waters throughout the world and cover an estimated 600 000 km2. The greatest cover of shallow reef occurs in the South Pacific. Middle East. It has been estimated that almost half a billion people live within 100 km of a coral reef. the Indian Ocean. it then discusses the different groups of stakeholders associated with reefs and begins to describe the nature of poverty in the coast. Finally. East Africa. Caribbean and finally the Atlantic (Table 1). and most of these are living in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean (Figure 3)..4 116 220 48 960 13 840 10 020 87 760 51 020 25 060 3600 31 930 15 490 8920 5790 680 12 620 3580 2230 1860 21 450 6660 3800 3260 20 360 3150 3020 1780 2 820 1250 1200 370 37. in regions of high population density.1 TABLE 1 REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF CORAL REEFS Region South Pacific Australia Papua New Guinea Fiji Southeast Asia Indonesia Philippines Malaysia Indian Ocean South Asia Maldives India Sri Lanka Eastern Africa Tanzania Madagascar Mozambique Middle East Saudi Arabia Egypt Eritrea Caribbean Bahamas Cuba Mexico Western Atlantic USA. the number of people likely to be interacting and 1.org U INTRODUCTION nderstanding the relationship between poverty and coral reefs requires not only an understanding of who the different stakeholders are and how they interact with the reef. such as Southeast Asia. 2001 Data from Burke et al. http://www. Figure 2 indicates that in Southeast Asia. such as Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean. and the Caribbean high proportions of the population are living in coastal areas. Eastern Africa and the South Pacific (Table 1). followed by Southeast Asia.

to be 100%.reefbase. coastal data % has been assumed pop.org/ 2 .reefbase.Figure 1 Global distribution of coral reefs. official country borders. Map source: http://www. % has been assumed to be 100%. approximate marine areas These do not represent for coral reef countries. 0 – 25% 26 – 50% 0 – 25% 26 – 50% 51 – 75% 51 – 75% 76 – 100% Displayed areas represent approximate marine areas Displayed areas represent for coral reef countries. coastal pop. Map source: http://www. Figure 2 Proportion of population living on the coast. 76 – 100% These do not represent official country borders. was provided.org/ Data shown represent the shown represent the percentage of country’s percentageof aacountry’s population who live within populationwho live within 100 km of the coast 100 km of the coast Source WRI Source WRI Note: for some small Note: for some small island nations where no island nations where no data was provided.

BOX 1 Pacific Southeast Asia Indian Ocean Middle East Western Atlantic Caribbean 0 50 100 150 200 250 CONSUMERS OF CORAL REEF PRODUCTS Millions Figure 3 Number of people living within 100 km of the coast. Coral reefs stakeholders are many and their livelihoods are diverse and vary in the type and extent of their dependence on coral reef resources. whose livelihood revolves around the direct extraction. Other people are much more indirect users of the reef. both locally and far away (Box 1). Reef stakeholders may also include the many people who consume reef products. or occasional and severe droughts. Those who harvest products from the reef include both men and women. Small discards and damaged fish are often crucial sources of cheap or free protein for the elderly and poor female-headed households. Direct Users Safety Net Users Different Reef-dependent Stakeholder groups Keystone Resource Users Indirect Users Figure 4 Key categories of reef users. both for those living on the coast. In many coastal communities adjacent to coral reefs. may also be reefdependent at certain times. the reef provides the only accessible source of protein for the poor. those who visit the reef for recreation. Others may only come to depend on it occasionally. inland communities and increasingly by people in developed countries. In this way. such as farmers. those that use the near-shore reef and coastal environment as a dumping ground for waste. those not generally considered as ‘reef users’. or those whose interest in the reef is for research and study. This is partially because dependence is such a variable and ill-defined concept. From: Bryant et al. These different broad groups of stakeholders can be represented as shown in Figure 4 below.3 CORAL REEF STAKEHOLDERS The number of people who are dependent on coral reefs is unknown. without which their survival would be threatened. who can directly access shallow near-shore reefs by foot.. which enables them to overcome extreme hardships or crises. living far away from the reef itself. 1998 Coral reef resources provide a diversity of products for consumption. such as people in wider society who value the reefs existence but who may never use it. young and old. 3 . Dried reef fish are often an important trading commodity between the coast and inland communities and provide valuable protein sources to households inland. when it acts as a vital safety net. the reef provides crucial resources enabling households to overcome seasonal lows in agricultural production. Some may depend on the reef only on a seasonal basis. Stakeholders may be considered as those living adjacent to the reef. 1. and partially because the statistics on the relationship between people and reefs are poor. but that dependence can be absolute and at such times the reef becomes a critical keystone resource. processing and sale of reef resources and whose homes and land are sheltered by the reef from wave action. The dependence of these different reef stakeholders varies. for example. from those whose association is full time. when. to part time users and those who only occasionally depend on the reef.

which indicates high levels of poverty in Eastern Africa. at least tens of millions of people are likely to depend on coral reefs for part of their livelihood or for part of their protein intake. and East Asia and the Pacific (UNDP. the reality of poverty in coastal areas is far more complex. are estimated to support 1 billion people (ICRI. For many smallscale fishers the reef represents an important resource.org/ 4 . 1. 1992). according to the definition of reef dependence or reef stakeholder applied. This picture is largely unchanged since 1990 as illustrated in Figure 6. Beneath the global and regional pictures and aggregate figures. followed by South Asia.. 2002).reefbase. ‘An estimated one billion people currently depend on fish for food. According to an IFAD study smallscale fishers are identified as a functionally vulnerable group amongst the rural poor (Jazairy et al. it is not surprising that estimates of the number of people dependent on reefs vary widely. at least 85% of whom rely principally on fish as their major source of protein’ (ICRAN. while nearly a half of the Medium Development countries have reefs. The International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) extends this figure further by saying that fish catches from shallow coastal waters dominated by coral reefs. Reseachers Tourists Forestry Farmers Consumers Fishers Coral reef resources Figure 5 Coral reef stakeholders.5 CHARACTERISTICS OF REEF-DEPENDENT POVERTY Among those people dependent on coral reefs the numbers living in poverty is significant. the largest proportion of people living on less than 1US$ a day was found in Sub-Saharan Africa. in Asia alone. 1. one third of all countries ranked as Low Development have coral reefs. Two-thirds of all countries with reef areas are developing countries. Latin America and the Caribbean. South Asia.4 NUMBERS OF PEOPLE DEPENDENT ON REEFS With such a diverse range of coral reef stakeholders. Moberg and Folke (1999) stated that in over 100 countries with coral reefs along their coastlines. In spite of these impressive figures for reef dependence. Sources: Kusi Lda IMM Ltd and http://www.These key groups of stakeholders are made up of a wide range of different groups of people whose lives often intersect and interact as shown in Figure 5 below. 2002). However. whose diversity and physical complexity favours low investment and low technology small-scale production. In 1999.6). According to the International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN). income and livelihood. One of the most data-rich areas of reef dependence is that of small-scale fishers. From an analysis of the numbers involved in this stakeholder group it is clear that throughout the world many millions of people are dependent on coral reef fisheries employment alone (Box 2). 2002b). regions which are also associated with large areas of coral reef. it will become clear from future sections that benefits from fisheries are only part of the complex benefit flows that reefs produce. According to the UNDP Human Development Index ranking (2002). one quarter of which are least developed countries (UNDP. 2002). Southeast Asia and Western Caribbean. as described in the following section (1. the situation remains poorly understood except in localised situations.

a b Compiled from WRI. 2001). Four of these regions stand out as poverty-reef hotspots for their high Percentage of population 40–73 20–40 5–20 2–5 1. Figure 6 1990 global distribution of people living on less than 1 US$ a day. Coasts are associated with high levels of development. and provides an important resource for poor people living on the coast or migrating there to escape hardships and access new opportunities. The dynamic nature of the coast combined with the fragmented development and often hostile conditions. the regional distribution of people living on less than 1US$ a day in 1999 remained largely unchanged from the distribution in 1990. is one of the most dynamic environments in which poor people live. coral reef resources clearly provide a considerable range of benefits. associated with tourism developments. totalling approximately 40 million people worldwide (McGoodwin. 1997. Such conditions are likely to particularly affect the poor. At the same time. This dynamism provides opportunities for the poor. can also result in poor infrastructure and weak support services. on the interface between land and sea. Those benefits on which the livelihoods of poor stakeholders depend are discussed in detail in the following chapter. Shallow coral reef resources represent an accessible open access resource. which is highly diverse and productive. which make it a dangerous place to live.6 REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF CORAL REEFS AND POVERTY Based on our current understanding of the global distribution of poverty and coral reefs.BOX 2 GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBERS INVOLVED IN FISHERIES PODUCTION The most recent global estimates suggest that around 36 million people are involved in fisheries and aquaculture (FAO. World Bank 2000 Note: According to the 2002 Human Development Report. 2000. The regional distribution of fishers indicates that most fishers are found in Asia (85%). particularly around ports and urban centres and 1. Data and Statistics Unit. Map source: adapted from http://www. followed by Africa (7%). but it also creates threats. and so provides space for the poor to live in otherwise marginalized coastal areas. near-shore coastal resources can provide a rich and accessible resource for the poor. six areas are particularly important.5–2 Data not available Data source: World Development Indicators.povertymap.a It has also been estimated that 95% of fishers worldwide are small-scale. At the same time the coast is vulnerable to frequent storms. marketers and distributors. 1999c) and around 30 million of these people originate from coral reef countries. As recent DFID-funded research has indicated (Box 3) the coastal ecosystem. cyclones. representing more than 20 million primary producers plus a further 20 million small-scale processors. FAO Fisheries Information. floods and coastal erosion. Given the number and diversity of reef stakeholders.b With extensive near-shore coral reef areas in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean it is likely that many millions of small-scale fishers are dependent on coral reefs for their livelihoods.net/ Rozenblat (2000) 5 . This physical hostility often discourages those with a choice from settling. who typically have poor access to support systems and are ‘hidden’ or excluded from development.

mangrove areas. Their shallow and complex physical structure and high biodiversity do not lend themselves to intensive exploitation and economies of scale. Finally. Poorer groups living in coastal communities exploit a diverse range of resources from both land and sea and from the interface between the two. The open-access nature of many of these resources makes them vulnerable to overexploitation or ‘occupation’ when there are clear economic advantages of doing so. much development has been concentrated in coastal areas. so they often remain ‘open-access’ even when other coastal resources have been ‘privatised’. while the coast offers opportunities for the poor. is changing as tourism and conservation lay claim to large areas of reef. as well as the largest number of people employed in fisheries and aquaculture. Of these six areas. these are opportunities that are often ‘fragile’ and vulnerable to changes that may ultimately result in them becoming inaccessible to poorer resource users. For female-headed households and widows. the Eastern Caribbean has a much smaller reef area than the other key areas and a smaller population. old and women. namely: Eastern Africa. industry. This means that. Southeast Asia. However. rivers and estuaries. many of whom are likely to rely on the reef resources which occupy almost 38% of the region’s coastline (Tables 1 and 2). tourism and urban areas often associated with the coast. In addition to the features that characterise poverty everywhere – poor health. revealed certain characteristics peculiar to poor communities dependent on coral reef resources. this poverty is frequently masked by the developments in agriculture. As the demand for fish products increases. and where local economies are highly vulnerable to future large-scale reef damage. 6 .ex.ac. Significantly. and Western Caribbean. to directly harvest resources on foot and by hand. (see: www. Southeast Asia is home to the second largest area of reef in the world. Although. This. however.The accessibility of coral reefs provides important opportunities for the poor. coral reef resources. such as marine fisheries. are ‘open-access’ which means that the poor are able to make use of them. poor shelter. the accessible reef resources provide a vital source of food and income. poverty is still widespread. in terms of poverty it is Eastern Africa and South Asia where the greatest proportion of people are found living below international and national poverty lines (Table 2). even when other opportunities are limited. This interstitial nature of coastal poverty often obscures it from the view of development planners leaving the poor out of the development equation. The Pacific also has a very large coral reef area with a high percentage of the population being dependent on the reefs. Many of these resources. where a very high percentage of the population depend directly on the reef. cheap and locally available technology.uk/imm/SCL. the overall population figures are significantly smaller in global terms. Coral reefs differ from many other coastal resources used by the poor in that they can not so easily be ‘occupied’ and alienated from public access for purely economic motives in the same way as many other coastal resources. coastal waters may become the scene of conflict between poor artisanal fishers and larger-scale mechanised operations. in India and Sri Lanka as in many other countries.htm) levels of poverty affecting large numbers of people and extensive areas of coral reef. who are frequently some of the poorer and more marginalized households in the communities. South Asia. the principle threats to poor people’s access to coral reefs are the degradation and disappearance of the reefs themselves. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka investigated the features and causes of poverty affecting coastal communities. coastal swamps may be converted to aquaculture ponds removing them from the range of resources available to the poor. Case study research carried out as part of the DFID-funded Reef Livelihoods Assessment Project in India and Mozambique. the South Pacific is known to have the largest expanse of shallow coral reef.BOX 3 CHARACTERISTICS OF COASTAL POVERTY Research carried out by the DFID-funded Sustainable Coastal Livelihoods Project in India. A significant feature of the coastal areas studied is that they frequently ‘attract’ the poor as they offer a range of easily-accessible livelihood opportunities that are often not available in inland areas. and poor overall quality of life – dependence on a diverse range of activities reliant on openaccess resources is a significant feature of the livelihoods of the poor in coastal areas. However. The poor fall into the gaps between this development and become hidden. food insecurity. However. including the young. For example. or using simple.

4 37. Beneath these regional statistics. Coral reefs border 35% of the coast of mainland Eastern Africa and encircle many of the smaller barrier and offshore islands (Table 3).9 n/a n/a n/a 26. except for Vietnam and Cambodia (data source: Asia Development Bank.079 1. operating in freshwater. Of these Tanzania.. Madagascar.5 n/a n/a n/a Population living below national poverty line (%)4 51. while the small islands off their coasts include both poor.7 0. poverty and numbers of fishers and other reef dependents.. 2002) 4 Data from UNDP Human Development Report 2002. Data and Statistics Unit. 2002. Belize and the Seychelles (data source: World Bank. These variations are summarised in the following sections. and developed countries.4 15.6 n/a 42 n/a 47 n/a GDP per capita (US$)5 501 799 861 9 974 9 107 n/a 1 022 n/a 1 429 n/a Number employed in fisheries and aquaculture6 92 529 83 310 20 000 1330 8408 18 900 59 565 3600 9 7676 805 Tanzania Madagascar Mozambique Seychelles Mauritius Somalia Kenya Mayotte Comoros Reunion Notes 1–6 as in Table 2 7 Data from UNDP Human Development Report. brackish and marine areas. 2002) 5 Data from UNDP Human Development Report 2002 6 Number employed in fishing and aquaculture includes the number of people employed in commercial and subsistence fishing (both personnel on fishing vessels and on shore). 2001 2 Data from UNDP Human Development Report 2002 and US Census Bureau 2000 3 Data from UNDP Human Development Report 2002. Medium Human Development rank (49–126). Low Human Development rank (127–162) 8 Estimated rank based on available data (UNDP. as shown in Tables 3–8 (n/a). Comoros.1 Eastern Africa Countries on the coast of mainland Eastern Africa and Madagascar are some of the poorest countries in the world. Tanzania has a large and rapidly growing coastal population and is bordered by the largest area of shallow coral reef in TABLE 3 EASTERN AFRICA COUNTRY POVERTY AND REEF STATISTICS Country Reef area (km2)1 3580 2230 1860 1690 870 710 630 570 430 <50 Total population (millions)2 34. however. with the exception of Maldives and Mayanmar (data source:Asian Development Bank.6. considerable variation exists in terms of reef area.2 7.TABLE 2 REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF REEFS AND POVERTY Region Reef area (km2)1 Total population (millions)2 29 1 795 1 284 108 171 47 Proportion of population living below 1US$ a day3 n/a 19 28 37 14 11 Proportion of population living below national poverty lines4 34 26 34 40 34 24 Average GDP per capita (US$)5 6 812 6 749 2 653 3 385 5 240 7 261 Total number employed in fisheries and aquaculture6 83 396 20 482 876 7 716 793 296 123 485 887 86 782 South Pacific Southeast Asia South Asia Eastern Africa Western Caribbean Eastern Caribbean 116 220 87 760 15 490 12 620 11 750 4 730 Note: data not available for all countries.5 17.9 0. 7 . 2002) 9 Number of active fishers from Spalding et al. In terms of reef area four countries stand out: Tanzania. Mozambique and Seychelles.25 30 0. Madagascar and Mozambique have a Low Human Development Index. 1 Data for shallow reef areas from Spalding et al. 1.156 0.1 70 n/a 16 10. and in aquaculture production activities. Data from WRI (2000) referring to estimates made between 1996–1999 from the FAO Fishery Information. 2001. details of the individual countries for the four poverty-reef hotspot regions are shown in Annex 1.72 Human Development Index rank7 Low Low Low Medium8 Medium n/a Medium n/a Medium n/a Population living below 1US$ a day (%)3 19. 2001). High Human Development rank (1–48).9 63.

Kenya although classified as Medium Human Development Index. 1998. Coral reefs are the foundation of life on the Maldives. Sri Lanka has a Medium-level Human Development Index with fringing coral reefs estimated to occur along approximately 2% of the coastline mainly in the northwest and east (Spalding et al. the source of bait fish for a large tuna fishery. 2001. all classified countries fall in the Medium Human Development group. which are mainly focused on reef formations and reef-associated species.. with over a third of its population living on less than 1 US$ a day (Table 4). who predominantly operate from small non-mechanised craft (FAO 2001c).2 6. 2001). varying greatly in extent from vast expanses of reef in the Maldives. 2001).6. Coral reefs border nearly 21% of the coastline. Near-shore fisheries have been estimated to contribute to 60% of total landings in 2000 (NARA. in the south. has a large fisheries-dependent population many of whom live on the coast and depend on reefs. of which 15 to 50% are estimated to be reefassociated species (Berg et al. 2000). and supporting smaller reef fisheries for limited local consumption and growing exports. South Asia also represents one of the world’s poorest regions. which is found along most of the coast and surrounding offshore islands (Spalding et al.7 134. providing land area. with estimates of the numbers of full-time marine fishers ranging from 10 000 to 15 000.7 18. and the Gulf of Kutch. accounting for 43% of the total production and involving approximately 50 000 people living in 1250 villages (Gabrie et al. In Madagascar coral reefs are widespread in the north and off the southwest coast. Coral reefs dominate the northern coast of Cabo Delgado. associated with a chain of 22 coral atolls running 800 km from north to south and including 1200 low coralline islands. In terms of poverty. of which 199 are inhabited. with significant proportions of the population living in coastal areas. Reef fisheries have been estimated to contribute to between 5 and 10% of the total marine landings (Pet-Soede et al.. but coral reefs are limited to only two main areas of the mainland coast: the Gulf of Mannar. Island and reef-based tourism also represents a significant industry. India’s coastal areas are heavily populated. with the exception TABLE 4 SOUTH ASIA COUNTRY POVERTY AND REEF STATISTICS Country Reef area (km2)1 8920 5790 680 <50 <50 Total population (millions)2 0..6 137. to only limited areas in Bangladesh and Pakistan (Table 4).6 29. and Nampula province. patchy reefs also occur in the southwest and in deeper waters off the west coast. Coastal areas are densely populated and coral reefs border much of the coastline and surround offshore islands and barrier islands in the north (Spalding et al. but contribute significantly to the subsistence and income of coastal fishing communities in the four reef areas. 1.. Note 7 as in Table 3. Spalding et al. with the remaining reefs associated with the remote islands of Lakshadweep off the west coast and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands off the east coast. 1. 1995. second to Eastern Africa in terms of the proportion of people living on less than 1US$ a day (Table 2)..6 Human Development Index rank7 Medium Medium Medium Low Low Population living below 1US$ a day (%)3 n/a 44. Livelihoods are still based predominantly on agriculture and fishing.3 Southeast Asia Southeast Asia is home to the largest coastal population in the world and some of the greatest expanses of shallow coral reef (Figures 1 and 2). respectively). and support fishery activities. It is also the country with the greatest expanse of coral reef. Reefs are also found scattered along the southern coast.. White and Rajasuriya.3 992. one of the poorest provinces in the country. 2001). 8 . India is one of the lower ranking Medium Human Development countries. 2001). The Maldives has the highest ranking Human Development Index of all the South Asian coastal nations.. in the northwest.1 31 Population living below national poverty line (%)4 40 35 25 35.Eastern Africa. 2000.6. A large small-scale marine fishery operates along the coast associated with the coral reef and nearshore resources. respectively).2 South Asia The coastal nations of South Asia are some of the most populated countries. construction materials. Mozambique ranks as the sixth poorest country in the world.6 34 GDP per capita (US$)5 4423 2248 3279 1483 1834 Number employed in fisheries and aquaculture6 19 108 5 958 744 146 188 1 320 480 272 273 Maldives India Sri Lanka Bangladesh Pakistan Notes 1–6 as in Table 2.

1 22. which stretches over 95 000 km encompassing over 17 000 islands (including sandbanks and rocks).8 62 47. 1996. Around 60% of the coral reefs in the Wider Caribbean are found in this region (Tables 2 and 6). 2001).9 12.1 36. and in many countries in Southeast Asia the coastal population includes some of the poorest people. 1996).1 GDP per capita (US$)5 2857 3805 8209 6123 1027 3617 1860 n/a 17 868 20 767 1361 Number employed in fisheries and aquaculture6 5 118 571 990 872 100 666 354 495 610 000 12 233 128 1 000 000 n/a 1355 364 73 425 Indonesia Philippines Malaysia Thailand Myanmar China Vietnam Taiwan. although the GDP per capita in Jamaica is notably low (Table 6). It has also been estimated that the coral reefs. Thailand. of which 6000 are inhabited. this ranking disguises the nature of coastal poverty. Haiti and Netherlands Antilles. China Brunei Darussalam Singapore Cambodia Notes 1–6 as in Table 2.8 Human Development Index rank7 Medium Medium Medium Medium n/a Medium Medium n/a High High Medium Population living below 1US$ a day (%)3 7. The reef fisheries provide an important contribution to the livelihoods and food security of many coastal people in all of these countries. It has been estimated that more than one million small-scale fishers depend directly on reef fisheries for their livelihood and coral reefs contribute significantly to protein supplies. The largest expanses of reef occur in Dominican Republic. Myanmar.5 Eastern Caribbean There are no countries in the Eastern Caribbean with a reef area over 1000 km2 but there are many countries with reefs (Table 7). The majority of the population live on the coast. 1. Myanmar and Vietnam stand out as having a high number of people employed in fisheries and aquaculture. of Brunei and Singapore ranking as High Human Development countries (Table 5).8 77. The two countries with the largest reef area in Southeast Asia are Indonesia and the Philippines. Mexico. All have Medium Human Development Index ranks.5 13. Dominican Republic and Haiti have a high number of people employed in fisheries and aquaculture. respectively). Half of the countries listed in Table 8 9 .1 22. 1998.9 n/a n/a n/a 36. Reef fisheries constitute 10% of the total fish production in the Philippines and as much as 70% of the total harvest on some small islands (Cesar. whose livelihoods are becoming progressively more vulnerable (see Chapter 3).6. 80% of Indonesia’s fisheries production has been estimated to originate from small-scale production in near-shore waters (UNEP. White and Cruz-Trinidad.6. as well as 84% of the total numbers employed in fisheries and aquaculture. Indonesia has more than 56 million people living on less than 1 US$ a day. which are bordered by the third largest expanse of coral reef associated with a single nation (Spalding et al.7 n/a n/a 2 n/a 18.1 1264. In the Philippine Archipelago most of the population lives in coastal areas. 1. 2001). The importance of fisheries to livelihoods is particularly noticeable in Mexico and Colombia where a high number of people are recorded as employed in fisheries and aquaculture. which dominate the near-shore.2 21.3 74.6 South Pacific The reef area of the South Pacific is dominated by the Great Barrier Reef of Australia. the largest extent associated with any single nation (Spalding et al. Haiti in particular has a Low Human Development Index rank.9 4. China and Vietnam also have large reef areas..5 32 n/a n/a n/a 36 Population living below national poverty line (%)4 27. Shallow coastal waters are home to 18% of the world’s coral reefs. followed by Puerto Rico. Of these. Malaysia. 1. as with the other regions discussed here. Of these Venezuela. in a country where more than 50% of animal protein is derived from marine fisheries and aquaculture (White and Cruz-Trinidad.6. However. form the foundation of livelihoods and food security for hundreds of thousands of subsistence fishers (Cesar.19 0. Venezuela.TABLE 5 SOUTHEAST ASIA COUNTRY POVERTY AND REEF STATISTICS Country Reef area (km2)1 51 020 25 060 3600 2130 1870 1510 1270 940 210 100 <50 Total population (millions)2 209. 1996). Belize and Jamaica have over a 1000 km2 of reef each.8 15. Note 7 as in Table 3.4 Western Caribbean The Western Caribbean countries are among some of the poorer and most populated countries in the Wider Caribbean.6 50.. 1998). Cuba.3 3.

the Solomon Islands. but this belies the degree of vulnerability that these communities are exposed to. Vanuatu and Kiribati.142 97.415 0.426 0.4 6.4 0.035 Human Development Index rank7 Medium8 Medium Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium Medium n/a Population living below 1US$ a day (%)3 n/a 12. Samoa with a relatively small reef area also has a significant number of fishers.3 n/a GDP per capita (US$)5 n/a 8297 4959 3561 8860 5749 2340 5875 2279 n/a Number employed in fisheries and aquaculture6 11 865 262 401 1872 23 465 6510 129 410 21 000 13 062 14 502 1800 Cuba Mexico Belize Jamaica Costa Rica Colombia Honduras Panama Nicaragua Cayman Islands Notes 1–6 as in Table 2. New Caledonia.2 6.3 0.9 11 40.3 0.2 n/a 3.9 41. Of these Papua New Guinea. Note 7 and 8 as in Table 3.2 n/a 17. rank as Medium Human Development Index countries. French Polynesia.9 0. Marshall Islands.072 1.2 2.5 10. not only for their main source of food security and livelihood for the majority of the people.4 n/a n/a Population living below national poverty line (%)4 20.3 50.1 33 34. Note 7 and 8 as in Table 3.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 21 n/a n/a GDP per capita (US$)5 5507 n/a 5495 1464 n/a n/a n/a 10 225 n/a n/a 11 596 5509 6817 5309 14 353 5425 8176 n/a n/a Number employed in fisheries and aquaculture6 9286 1758 44 302 4700 800 127 1300 892 2761 370 343 1939 2180 2800 3000 2240 7297 n/a 687 Dominican Republic Puerto Rico Venezuela Haiti Netherlands Antilles British Virgin Islands Guadeloupe Antigua and Barbuda Martinique US Virgin Islands St Kitts and Nevis St Lucia Grenada St Vincent and the Grenadines Barbados Dominica Trinidad and Tobago Anguilla Aruba Notes 1–6 as in Table 2. followed by Fiji. but also as a critical barrier from the erosive forces of the sea.2 3. the largest after Australia being Papua New Guinea.012 0. Most of the countries in the Pacific that have been ranked.3 n/a n/a Population living below national poverty line (%)4 n/a 10. and rather unusual.02 0.TABLE 6 WESTERN CARIBBEAN COUNTRY POVERTY AND REEF STATISTICS Country Reef area (km2)1 3020 1780 1330 1240 970 940 810 720 710 230 Total population (millions)2 11.039 0.916 23. The Pacific’s dependence on reefs represents a particular. The smaller island states depend on the reef.6 3.066 0.8 4.3 2.6 n/a 31. Solomon Islands.7 8 0. have a reef area greater than 1000 km2. Federated States of Micronesia. 10 .07 Human Development Index rank7 Medium n/a Medium Low n/a n/a n/a Medium8 n/a n/a High8 Medium8 Medium8 Medium8 High High8 Medium n/a n/a Population living below 1US$ a day (%)3 3. and as the main source TABLE 7 EASTERN CARIBBEAN COUNTRY POVERTY AND REEF STATISTICS Country Reef area (km2)1 610 480 480 450 420 330 250 240 240 200 180 160 150 140 <100 <100 <100 <50 <50 Total population (millions)2 8. case.089 0.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.115 0.2 n/a 18.7 53 37.156 0.121 0.21 0. Fiji and Kiribati have the highest numbers of people dependent on fisheries. mostly inshore reef fisheries.

others are extremely vulnerable (such as in the Pacific). The next Chapter tries to understand how the dependence of these people on the reef manifests itself in all aspects of their livelihoods.466 0. or as a safety net in times of stress. In the order of tens of millions rely on reefs to support part of their livelihood. Note 7 and 8 as in Table 3.015 0.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a 39.02 0.02 0. The poor often fall in the gaps between coastal development activities.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 48 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a GDP per capita (US$)5 24 574 2367 4799 n/a n/a n/a 1975 n/a 3108 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 4047 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Number employed in fisheries and aquaculture6 13 800 16 000 8985 4900 2100 793 11 000 1150 300 6500 3500 215 n/a n/a 12 394 110 560 n/a 300 n/a 325 100 364 n/a Australia Papua New Guinea Fiji Marshall Islands French Polynesia New Caledonia Solomon Islands Federated States of Micronesia Vanuatu Kiribati Tonga Hawaii Cook Islands Wallis and Futuna Tuvalu Samoa American Samoa Guam Johnston Island.202 0.133 0. and who are often seen as an obstacle to conservation or development.2 0. or as a focus of study and research. Within those countries there are a wide diversity of stakeholders who depend upon those reef resources as a regular part of their livelihoods.155 0 0.002 0.002 Human Development Index rank7 High Medium Medium n/a n/a n/a Medium8 n/a Medium8 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Medium n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Population living below 1US$ a day (%)3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Population living below national poverty line (%)4 n/a 21. as a source of pleasure for tourists.249 0.05 0.9 4. as a part-time but essential component. 1.8 0.072 0.TABLE 8 SOUTH PACIFIC COUNTRY POVERTY AND REEF STATISTICS Country Reef area (km2)1 48 960 13 840 10 020 6110 6000 5980 5750 5440 4110 2940 1500 1180 1120 940 710 490 220 220 220 170 <100 <50 <50 <50 <50 Total population (millions)2 18. USA Niue Pitcairn Islands Nauru Northern Marianas Palau Tokelau Notes 1–6 as in Table 2. Whilst the reefs of the Pacific are in the main in good condition. The number of people who depend upon reefs and their level of dependence is not well known. climate change poses a major threat to the livelihoods of a high percentage of the populations of many of these island states (as described in Chapter 3).7 25.011 0.19 0. 11 .065 0. Some are very poor (especially in Africa and South Asia). as a dumping ground of waste. they are often the marginalised ones that do not have legal title to coastal resources. There is also a growing dependence in wider society on reefs as a part of national heritage.068 0.7 SUMMARY Coral reefs border a large extent of the coastlines of some of the poorest countries in the world.7 0. Because of this hidden nature the profile of the coastal poor is only just beginning to be understood. of locally available building materials.102 2. Many of these are very poor people.012 0.019 0. providing food and income and basic subsistence needs. This section of the report has tried to give some understanding of the distribution of the reef-dependent poor around the world and it is clear from this analysis that they are many and widely dispersed. but that poverty is often hidden from sight.092 0.

environmental and policy context in which the poor exist. The relationship that poor reef-dependent people have with the resources available to them. financial.1 INTRODUCTION n the previous Chapter the widespread occurrence of reefs and the level of human interaction with the reef were outlined. These resources contribute to the building blocks of the livelihoods of the poor and ultimately to the livelihood outcomes that they aspire to. Small-scale fisheries were used as one example of the benefit flows that reefs can provide. to enhancing the interactions of the poor with direct influencing factors (Section 2. social. 2.2. the private sector and society.CHAPTER 2 AN OVERVIEW OF REEF-RELATED BENEFIT FLOWS TO THE POOR I 2. This Chapter identifies the wide diversity of benefit flows to reef-dependent communities. Globally there are an estimated 4000 coral reef fish species. the biodiversity of the marine environment far outweighs that found on land and the reef represents the principal natural resource base for the local population. human. by contributing to positive livelihood outcomes. physical. 1998). where many thousands of different species are encountered (Zuhair. The services that the reef provides to the poor ultimately benefit them.4). but varies according to the health of the reef and the reef area and region in question (Table 9). These direct influencing structures and processes emanate from government.1 High biodiversity and productivity Coral reefs support high levels of biodiversity and biomass in tropical regions where the surrounding ocean is comparatively barren. In the Maldives.2. On many small coral islands. social and human.1%). these are outlined below. if they are to meaningfully represent the positive improvements in their lives.3). Despite the small area coral reefs occupy on the world’s surface (only 0. 2. It uses a livelihoods approach and framework based on the DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) to understand the wider benefits of reefs to all aspects of people lives.2 CONTRIBUTION OF CORAL REEFS TO THE RESOURCES OF THE POOR The reef contributes directly to the resources that are immediately available to the poor to use in their livelihoods. These are natural. TABLE 9 FISHERIES PRODUCTIVITY ESTIMATES OF CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEMS Reef area Philippines Productivity estimate (mt/km2/year) 18 excellent condition 13 good condition 8 fair condition 3–37 6–20 Source (McAllister.1. physical and financial resources. how they use these resources in the operating environment created by direct and indirect influencing factors in order to create their livelihood strategies and achieve their desired livelihood outcomes. to respond to the structures and processes that influence them and to cope with the background context in which they operate. They in turn interact with the longer-term and periodically catastrophic background changes that affect the social. This section of the report focuses on the contribution of coral reefs: to the resources accessed by the poor (Section 2. 1988) (Savina and White.. 1997) Philippines Pacific 12 . 2001). We refer to these as the indirect influencing factors.. These positive benefits are best defined and measured by the poor themselves.1 Natural resources Coral reefs provide a wide array of benefit flows to the poor that enhance the natural resources that they have access to. terrestrial biodiversity is insignificant compared to the rich biodiversity of the surrounding reefs. 2001). 2. it is believed that there are more species per unit area of coral reef than any other ecosystem (Spalding et al. and to the ability of the poor to cope with the risks and vulnerabilities associated with indirect influencing factors (Section 2. In addition the reef can enhance the way the poor interact with the structures and processes that directly influence the way the poor access and use their resources. for example. 1986) (Dalzell and Adams. These resources can be grouped under five headings: natural. The reef also has the potential to directly contribute to the livelihood strategies that the poor adopt to use the resources they can access. which constitute at least 25% of all marine fish species (Spalding et al. The productivity associated with coral reefs is estimated to be higher than any other ecosystems.2). Some of these benefits arise because reefs can contribute directly to the resources that the poor have access to. is shown diagrammatically in Figure 7. economic. These sections describe the many different streams of benefits to the livelihoods of the poor providing examples from around the world and from the four case studies undertaken as part of the Reef Livelihoods Assessment project. especially the poor.

financial and physical) they have access to. CARE. OXFAM. caste or religion. and determine the vulnerability and risks the poor are exposed to. and an outline of many current applications through research and development activities. as Direct Influencing Factors. in the third ellipse. Different livelihood frameworks have been developed by other development agencies (e. such as their age. are the Indirect Influencing Factors – the seasonal. natural.The first ellipse surrounding the poor represents the resources (human. to combine the resources they have access to and develop a livelihood strategy are the result of these multiple and varied influencing factors which surround the poor. Some influencing factors may relate to characteristics of the poor themselves.Whatever livelihood strategy the poor adopt will determine the form of their livelihood outcomes. which interact and impact upon Direct Influencing Factors and resource access. Guidance on the DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) can be found at www.This site provides guidance sheets on the approach. social.They are factors that the poor interact with directly and over which they may have some control. class.The diagram is a schematic view of the livelihoods of the reef-dependent poor. longer-term and periodically catastrophic background changes. UNDP).INDIR RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE E CT IN F L U ENCING FAC TORS HEALTH SEASONALALITY EMPLOYMENT AVAILABILITY MARKET DEMANDS OWNERSHIP OF THE COMMONS RESOURCE TRENDS POLITICAL TRENDS HEALTH TRENDS NATURAL RESOURCE SEASONALALITY TECHNOLOGY CHANGE D IR E CT INFLUENCING FACTO GOVERNANCE RS ECONOMIC GROWTH PATRONAGE KNOWLEDGE RESOURCE ACCESS POWER INFORMATION RE SO URC ES Human G ENDER AGE POPULATION GENDER TE/CLAS S DECISION MAKING POLICY E A G CASTE DISEASE CLASS SOCIAL NORMS CYCLONE TABOO FLOOD RELIGION Social AS REEF DEPENDENT POOR M Natural LAW REGULATION SERVICE DELIVERY ECONOMICS MARKETS CUS TO Financial LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES DROUGHT GLOBALISATION WELL-BEING INCLUSION HEALTH INCOMES SECURITY LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES CHOICES KNOWLEDGE STABLE NATURAL RESOURCES Figure 7 Reef-dependent livelihoods.livelihoods.The livelihood options available to the poor. Other factors may relate to aspects of the society in which they live and the political structures and processes or government and private sectors that they interact with. It encourages us to place the poor at the centre of our interpretations and to embrace the complexity of their livelihoods. RU L E S C Physical CONFLICT HAPPINESS 13 .org . reports and publications on its use. Surrounding these.Access to these resources is determined by multiple factors which influence the poor at varying levels and over which the poor have varying degrees of control. The diagram illustrated has been developed as part of the DFID-funded IMM implemented Sustainable Coastal Livelihoods Project and is just one way to conceptualise livelihoods.g. gender. DFID. which is best defined by the poor themselves.These factors are represented in the second ellipse surrounding the poor.

the sea provides 119 different kinds of fish. which is one of the most energy. 1995). 5 turtles. a live bait fishery has been reported from at least the fourteenth century.. regularly using 20 reef-associated fish species to supply live bait to the offshore pole and line fishery (Risk and Sluka. 2. 2001). including 41 local varieties of fish. 2 sea mammals and squid (Worsley. In the Maldives. squid and sea cucumbers were exploited from the reef and near shore (Wilson et al. the predominantly small-scale and subsistence nature of the fishery means that the real benefit of the coral reef resource is often overlooked in national fishery statistics. 2003).3 Bait fish for tuna fisheries Reef resources also provide crucial inputs for pelagic fisheries production. 1994). requiring minimal technology and financial investment. most of the 400 reef species locally named are exploited (Ruddle et al. However. 2 crustacean species. In Indonesia. molluscs. 8 mollusc species.nic.in/ 14 . and in India the predominantly subsistence reef fisheries may provide 5–10% of the total marine fish production (Pet-Soede et al. White and Rajasuriya..1. octopus.. crustaceans and seaweed (Box 4). including fish.2 A haven for small-scale fisheries The productivity of the reef resource combined with its rich 2. Similarly. 2003). through the supply of bait fish. respectively). High biodiversity inherently means a high diversity of potential opportunities for exploitation. 80% of the total coastal fisheries production is from subsistence fishing and just under half of the total annual commercial catch originates on coral reefs (Dalzell et al. 1996). 1997). 80% of the fisheries production arises from smallscale production in inshore waters (UNEP. Consequently. 2003). India Source: http://lakshadweep.1. The biological diversity and complex three-dimensional structure of coral reefs also protect against the development of large-scale commercial fisheries reliant on trawls and industrial gear (Pomeroy. Gulf of Mannar: 200 species are known to be commercially exploited in the Gulf of Mannar (DOD. Any coral reef-based fishery around the world is characterized by the large numbers of different groups of species exploited. a rapid survey revealed that 27 different fish families. 42 kinds of shellfish. 1995.BOX 4 EXAMPLES OF THE DIVERSITY OF EXPLOITED REEF SPECIES Australia: Among the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. 1992).. In the South Pacific. Solomon Islands: In the Marovo area of the Solomon Islands. in Lakshadweep the pole and line tuna fishery (Figure 8) is supported by a reef-based bait fishery.A rapid survey of 3 coastal villages revealed 74 locally named and commonly exploited reef products. Mozambique: Among 3 coastal communities in northern Mozambique. 19 local varieties of crustacean and 4 varieties of seaweed (Rengasamy et al. Figure 8 Pole and line tuna fishing in Lakshadweep. 2000). 2000.2. 4 crustaceans.. coral reefs fisheries are a haven for small-scale fishery activities and their often shallow and near-shore location allows easy access.and capital-intensive fisheries associated with the reef (Hoon.2. diversity play a significant role in the fisheries of many developing countries.

coral reefs fringe a chain of 21 coralline islands. as well as the reef itself (Hviding. together with the exposure of reef flats at low tides have enabled an often intimate familiarity and mental mapping of coral heads. providing extensive resources for exploitation (Box 5). Behind the shelter of reefs. Nowhere is this function more apparent than the coral islands and atolls of the Pacific and Indian Ocean. sheltering mangroves. 2003) • ‘The reef is a natural nursery’ • ‘It is because reefs are there and its fertility. For the coastal people of the Gulf of Mannar coral reefs are perceived as part and parcel of the ocean. 2003) 15 . The high visibility typical of tropical waters. including the extraction of seaweed. 1998). but once they awake due to wind or storms the damage is heavy for there is no reef belt to control the action of the waves. around the island of Tobi. For all coastal communities living in the shelter of coral reefs. In the south Pacific.2 Physical resources 2. LAGOONS AND SEAGRASS BEDS IN THE GULF OF MANNAR. Breaking waves and swells over reefs are also commonly used as guides for navigation. India. reefs and associated fishing grounds. The association of coral reefs with other near-by ecosystems is often well recognized by local people (Box 5). which hit against the reef belt and subside in force by the time they arrive at the shore.2. INDIA In Thavukadu locals believe the Gulf of Mannar to be a male sea.2. thus reducing coastal erosion and the impact of storms. This mosaic of coastal ecosystems forms the basis for sea-based livelihoods among the coastal communities.. as expressed below: • ‘It is the reef from where everything sprouts and spreads throughout the entire sea’ BOX 6 THE MALE AND FEMALE SEAS OF THE GULF OF MANNAR AND PALK BAY. lobsters. nesting sites for birds and turtles and lenses of fresh water for drinking and agriculture. the reef acts as a ‘Fish Aggregation Device’.2. fish and shells from the seagrass beds and ‘trapped sea’ between the islands and the mainland coast.2. sea cucumbers and reef fish from the reef flats and lagoons. seagrass and mangrove habitats can flourish. In this way. (From: Rengasamy et al. 2.1. The shelter provided by reefs is widely recognised by coastal communities.. which in turn attracts fishers. squid.2. we get different varieties of fish to catch and we have to keep different nets’ (From: Rengasamy et al.2. fishers exploit large numbers of tuna attracted to the reef by seasonal abundances in juvenile reef fish (Johannes. one of the south west islands of Palau. where it has even been incorporated into local myth (Box 6).1 Coastal protection Coral reefs play a critical role in providing a physical barrier against wave energy. in the village of Thavukadu in the Gulf of Mannar. 2.2. and the harvest of crabs. In locations where local communities equate their surrounding natural landscapes with their own ancestors and identities. it has been estimated that 1 km2 of coral reef prevents 2000 m2 of erosion per year (Berg et al. agricultural land and public infrastructure from the erosive forces of waves. shells.4 Interactions with adjacent coastal ecosystems Coral reefs form an integral part of the wider coastal and ocean ecosystem interlinked by flows of nutrients. currents and storms. local people perceive the reef resource as encompassing mangrove and estuarine habitats. sediments and energy. 2003). For example. often in locations where no alternative navigation aids exist (Box 7). the significance of the protection provided by coral reefs. This in turn provides a habitat for people. Coral reefs are in many cases the basis for island creation through the accumulation of reef-generated sand and sediment behind the reef and the continual supply of sand to coastal beaches. lagoons. INDIA In the Gulf of Mannar. In contrast. In BOX 5 REEFS. may be even greater. where like a woman the waters are calmer most of the time. 1981). the reef barrier protects their homes. 1994). The reef also provides shelter and an attractive source of food to pelagic open water fish species in a comparatively barren tropical sea. lagoons and a shallow ‘trapped sea’ with extensive seagrass beds.2 Navigation The wave buffering effect of reefs also creates safe waters for navigation and fishing in the sheltered waters behind the reef and lagoon. Palk Bay is believed to be a female sea.. Along the erosion-prone coasts of western and southern Sri Lanka. due to the nature of its rough waves. In the Andaman Islands many fishing grounds for pelagic species are located on the edge of reefs or in channels between reefs (Singh and Andrews.

2. Territorial limits for each kavebu are established by lining up obvious landmarks. In Sri Lanka. causeways.2. or the condition of waves and sky. 1949).2. In particular. is one of 28 linguistically distinct areas of New Caledonia. coral has been an important source of lime for construction. A variety of other reef species are also manufactured into tools and jewellery. In the Maldives. coral sand and large gastropods are all extracted for use in local construction as building blocks and for the production of lime for cement.Within this zone the Kanak people are divided into eight independent political and social units. 1996). In Mola Village. Income generation is not restricted solely to the fisher. coral stone was even used for the construction of royal tombs and monuments in Tonga (Gibbings. are also known to have become so familiar with the sea floor that they can navigate without a compass (Bunce and Gustavson. 2. but extends through a chain of interactions to the many others involved in processing. influenced the positioning of a marine boundary (Schug. flocks of birds. as curios. and home of the Kanak people. agriculture and the chemical industry and it was estimated that over 18 000 tonnes of coral were mined in 1984 (Katupotha.2. reef molluscs are an important resource for ornaments and curios. foundations of houses and to ‘modernize’ houses. In some cases the location of a particular feature. Coral. 1992) the Pacific this is known to be so evolved so as to include names for large coral heads (Ruddle et al. ornaments or jewellery.. a reef passage or patch. coral and sand have been used for building. 1998). These territories are subject to rules and require authorisation for one kavebu to fish in a territory which is not their own. 2001). Corals are also used for the production of tools and fish traps (Figure 11). 1995). The corals’ ultimate end may be in aquaria. 1988). In Sri Lanka.3 Financial resources 2. rubble and sand are the main construction materials and as much as 20 000 m3 is mined every year (Cesar. 1988). Indonesia. or kavebu.2.2. the use of coral in construction may be the only economically viable option and so it remains an important resource. or the waves coming over a reef. roadways. CITES records account for 142 coral groups in international trade (Green and Shirley 1999). wave breakers on the reef Te aiburani man. seawalls and for reclamation (Teiwaki. the topography of the sea floor is also well known by fishermen and most local reefs and submerged rocks carry names (Stirrat.. 1995). Taribo. in particular for those from isolated island communities and for the poor.BOX 7 USING SEAMARKS OR BETIA FOR NAVIGATION IN KIRIBATI The people of Kiribati relied upon seamarks or betia to navigate at sea.1 Income generation The majority of natural products extracted from a coral reef have the potential to generate income either in local markets or in export markets. from the tops of hills on land to the reefs and reef channels at the seaward edge of the territory.4 Source of materials Not only are the reef inhabitants extracted. marketing and sale (Box 16 . Jamaica. 1988) BOX 8 REEF BOUNDARIES OF KAVEBU TERRITORIES IN NORTHERN NEW CALEDONIA The Nenema zone of northern New Caledonia. although this is becoming less common with the use of synthetic alternatives. plastering and white wash.3. (From:Teulieres. Elder fishermen of Montego Bay. 1992). coral mining began relatively recently (1960s) and the coral has been used to build fences. In the past. Land and near-shore marine areas associated with each kavebu are subject to ownership and are delimited. their collection in many cases driven by export or tourist markets (Box 9). prominent coral heads or boulders and exposed reef flats have been used throughout Oceania as a means of demarcating the marine border of the traditional land and sea territories of neighbouring villages or clans (Box 8). 1979). 2. flooring. For many people. such as waves breaking over the reef edge.2. as it is believed that coral stones make the houses stronger (Figures 9 and 10) (Elliot et al. In Kiribati. In the Trobriand Islands marine territories are delineated by the distinct physical boundaries of a coral patch or boulder (Young. roads.3 Physical boundaries The distinctly visible characteristics of a coral reef. so is the foundation of the reef itself. On Tarawa Island betia included: Maribo. Betia could consist of schools of fish. coral reefs projecting above water at low tide Taabeneia. coral blocks. the mudflats and the bare reef (From:Teiwaki.

were included this figure would be greatly inflated. 1995). predominantly tuna fishing which depend in reefs to attract the pelagic fish and for live bait supplies (Zuhair. In Discovery Bay. Jamaica. In Atulayan Bay. On Mafia Island. Figure 11 Fish trap secured with coral pieces. Tanzania. If reef-based tourism and travel related employment. Philippines Source: John McManus http://www/reefbase. In the Maldives. Philippines. In the Gulf of Mannar. 1995). Jamaica. Woodley. Kusi Lda Source: Michael Ross http://www. fishing may be the primary or only source of cash income. reef products generated income for up to 90% of households (Figure 12. on lime production (Berg et al. Philippines. many communities remain almost completely dependent on marine products for generating cash income and ensuring long-term economic security (Schug. 1998. in terms of numbers of people involved (Dulvy et al. an estimated 70–95% of fishers depend on fishing as their sole source of income (Bunce and Gustavson. coral mining ranked third as an incomegenerating activity.. 1998). 1998). a significant proportion of the workforce may be employed in reef-dependent activities. a fifth of households derive all or most of their income from fishing (Pollnac.reefbase. Figure 9 Coral rubble and gastropod shells used in house construction in Northern Mozambique. 1994). In those locations where marine resources are the primary natural resource. Wilson et al. for example. particularly for poorer households. coral mining may also play an important role.. Source: James Wilson. org/ 10).. 2000). Income generation is not just limited to fishing activities. 25% of the workforce is employed in fishing. 17 .. 2003). Coral miners in Sri Lanka could earn three times the alternative income of rural labour and it was estimated that in addition to the miners many thousands of people were economically dependent. In the Torres Straits of Papua New Guinea. providing up to 50% of the household income (Rengasamy et al. directly or indirectly. 2003). In the three poor villages studied in this project in Northern Mozambique.. fish vending offers an important opportunity for poor female-headed households.org/ In many coastal communities. which contribute to 56% of the national economy in the Maldives (Westmacott et al.Figure 10 Coral harvest. 1998). some members of the fishing community have no other source of income and in Montego Bay.

In Eastern Africa. often by foot and without the need of boats or specialized equipment.3. reef species are the inspiration for traditional designs. near shore and at relatively shallow depths. a fish sacrifices itself to sustain the human life. On the Kei Islands of Indonesia. have been harvested for shell craft. allow easy access. In other cases. In Samoa baskets filled with branching coral fragments were used to trap fish (Gibbings. it throws open lots of opportunities for various groups of people. INDIA ‘Take for example the lobster that we catch in the reef area. particularly in Kenya (TRAFFIC 2001). Consequently. little investment is needed to enter a reef fishery. 2003) Figure 12 Small-scale fishing craft. 1988). and thus they provide multiple opportunities for poorer households.. where Trochus shells were used to manufacture mother-of pearl buttons.2. fishermen. On the South West Islands of Palau strings of shells were used as a rattle to attract sharks for fishing (Johannes 1981). such as: live fish for aquaria and restaurants. In Kiribati coral and rock pieces are used to build large fish traps on the reef top (Teiwaki. In Eastern Africa.3. merchants. 2. and presently shell collection for tourist curios provides an important source of income. as a dietary supplement. where historically women used to wear a wedlock pendant designed in the shape of a reef fish. Figure 13). it is unimaginable to comprehend all these people and their activities. with limited financial resources (Box 11. Export demands for reef products often offer higher value options throughout the year. People associated with the production. green snails and Trochus have been harvested for the manufacture of mother-of-pearl buttons for hundreds of years. Source: James Wilson. processors.2. Before a piece of fish is taken by a consumer. 1979). the arrival of Chinese settlers in 18 .’ (From: Rengasamy et al.. the shell trade for mother-of-pearl may date back to the 1870s. or crabs for processed crab sticks. 1981). BOX 10 MULTIPLE FISHERIES-BASED OPPORTUNITIES IN THE GULF OF MANNAR. marketing and mending of the gears and nets. supplying Chinese and other Asian markets and more recently western markets. locally known as the Tonga fish or Box fish (Rengasamy et al. mother-of-pearl and the ornamental shell trade. it creates social relations. Coral has also been used in constructing fish traps. In the Pacific Conch shells are used a horn to sound warnings and call meetings (Young. Sea cucumbers are a sought after commodity from reef areas around the world (Figure 14). 2. and these provide income generating opportunities to local collectors and fishers. export and inland distribution.2 Low entry cost reef fisheries The location of reefs. 1949). Kusi Lda. Mollusc shells and turtle shells have also been used traditionally to make fish hooks and lures and in Palau pieces of coral were used as a file to shape fish hooks (Johannes. seaweed for agar production. 2003). due to the high value they generate with export traders. the leftovers were ground up and added to automobile paints to provide luster (Thorburn. Reef shells such as giant clams. certain reef fish have become known locally as Dollar Fish.3 Diversity of products and markets The diversity of coral reef resources and exploited reef products gives access to a range of different associated markets. Such is the case in the Gulf of Mannar. Certain reef products are of high value for international markets. In the Andaman Islands. and may provide a more attractive market outlet compared to local markets. it generates a chain reaction. people managing cold storage. Mozambique. 2000).BOX 9 EXAMPLES OF THE USE OF REEF SPECIES AS TOOLS AND ORNAMENTS All over the world coral reef molluscs.

operating costs in terms of time and fuel. known locally as Vathai. unlike the alternative of nets which can often only be acquired with loans or credit. a leaf bag and plastic slippers are all that are required to undertake this activity. In India and Sri BOX 11 USING SIMPLE. teeth or jaws. For example. which can yield 10–12 small fish (approximately 1 kg) for household consumption. the practice known as Kal moodsal is a simple activity carried out by children and adults close to shore. Cast nets. 2003) On Agatti Island. These are constructed locally and have low running costs. Single species may also be able to access a number of different markets. which provides an important income earning opportunity (Nichols. where sea cucumbers and the opercula of large gastropods. The diversity of reef species and markets provide stability to the fishery (Figure 15). (From: Singh and Andrews. known locally as Mbande.. sharks may be sold locally for their meat. 2003) In the Andaman Islands. (From: Rengasamy et al. with the impact of falling demand and prices of one product. both locally and for export. with limited financial resources and limited access to loans or credit. which has been entirely export orientated and provided a lucrative market primarily to small-scale fishers (TRAFFIC. with many of the reef fishing grounds closer to shore. In the Pacific Islands. Lakshadweep..The boats operated in the lagoon and near shore reef are small non-mechanized traditional wooden rowing boats. For the new immigrant household on the Andamans. particularly those used during the rough weather season. and to foreign markets for their liver oil (used in cosmetics and sun cream) and skin (to process into leather) (Nichols. known as Dhonis.Figure 13 Local boat construction. 1993). 2001). the reef provides shelter in the near-shore shallow waters for seaweed cultivation. of which 66% are small non-mechanised locally constructed boats with a sail and oars for rowing. 2003) 19 . or even rising prices of another product. are collected and used as exchange for Tanzania shillings. are not expensive and all the households in Agatti own at least one. Indonesia. known as Tharappam. In addition to the low investment required for gear. offset by continuing demand. at low tide. Reef products may also be used to obtain foreign currency. Source: James Oliver http://www. known as Beesh Bala.org/ the mid 1900s coincided with the emergence of the sea cucumber industry. In the Northern Mozambican village of Messano. Such is the case in Northern Mozambique. simply requiring a bag or sack to collect the harvest. 2003). supplying an export market and providing an important source of income principally to women (Wilson et al. hand-lines are an accessible option. the coral reefs can be accessed by non-mechanised boats and the gear required (hand-lines) is simple and cheap and can be easily procured. absorbing the impact of fluctuating demand and prices.A simple small cast net. 2003). are also lower for reef-based fisheries. CHEAP AND LOCALLY AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY TO ACCESS REEF RESOURCES In the Gulf of Mannar. throughout the year in the shallow eastern lagoon.. helping finance trips across the border to Tanzania (Wilson et al. Boat-based fishing activities are carried out from traditional wooden boats.reefbase. 1993). (From: Hoon. rural fishermen have accessed the Japanese market for shark fins. shallow reef flats and lagoons can be accessed by foot and seaweed and shell collection is typically undertaken in this way. or rafts.

1989). With the emergence of cash economies. Indonesia. Source: James Oliver http://www.reefbase. such as the elderly or femaleheaded households. 2. In some cases it also continues to underpin the movement of essential goods between the coast and inland communities. Sooner or later the giver of a fish could expect to receive other goods or services in return and in some cases this was an important means of receiving otherwise unobtainable products. and is of particular importance for vulnerable groups. but may be used instead as a trading commodity for barter. 1990). it is also high in fats. With the introduction of cash economies shell currency has disappeared. Indonesia.3. their resources (Johannes. it remains an important way to maintain social customs and traditions (Box 13). 2.2. Direct shipments of cowries were made to Africa. In the South Pacific. such as the sick.org/ Lanka. and evidence for the use of shell money has been found across Africa. however. sharing reef products was a key element of social security and social status was afforded according to the extent to which a person redistributed. vitamins and minerals. contributing to 10% of the fish consumed by humans. sharks are sold locally for consumption and for the curio trade. where it dates back at least to the Shang Dynasty 1700 to 1100 BC (Risk and Sluka. 1999).2. In other cases. 1973). Small cowries (Cypraea moneta) were collected from the shallow reef flats and traded for almost 4000 years. and providing a supply of protein for tens of millions of people (Moberg and Folke. and is particularly important for poorer members of the community.2. with little or no cash savings or access to cash earning opportunities.1 Providing food security Coral reefs and their associated fisheries are a major source of food and animal protein throughout the world. at the peak of the slave trade. Southeast Asia and Europe.Figure 14 Dried sea cucumber. Shells were most likely the earliest form of currency (Box 12). BOX 12 SHELL MONEY The Maldives became known as the Money Islands. reef products were not sold but shared with family. is named after the valve of the pearl oyster.4 Human resources 2. Pinctada species. Seafood not only provides a source of protein. Source: Mark V. South Asia and China. neighbours and those in need in a system of reciprocity that underpinned social and economic life. although the contemporary Papua New Guinean currency. 2000). Traditionally in many reef-fishing communities. 20 . In the 1720s. rather than accumulated. 500 million cowries were exported to West Africa alone (Risk and Sluka. the Kina. due to the great number of shells to be found there. 2000). This highly nutritional food source is often the primary source of protein for coastal communities. Figure 15 Fish for sale at a local market.reefbase.4. bartering has become less common. In Papua New Guinea several inland societies would undertake dangerous and costly trips to the coast to obtain shells for use as currency in a shell-based economy (Hogbin. and were used as one of the main forms of exchange in the slave trade. traditionally under the control of the Sultan.4 Reef products for exchange and barter Reef products may not always be used to earn cash. Erdmann http://www. the exchange of reef products for other goods or services remains an important part of the life of coastal communities. while their fins and livers are exported (Kristensen.org.

In some instances. 2003). with 90% of animal protein originating from fish products (Johannes. 1978). products from the reef and near-shore areas are widely used in systems of exchange for other products or services. 2003). for example. In the Trobriand Islands. who may not otherwise be provided for (Bunce and Gustavson. In Kiribati. TABLE 10 DEPENDENCE OF PACIFIC ISLAND HOUSEHOLDS ON FISHING FOR SUBSISTENCE Pacific Island Kiribati Marshall Islands Solomon Islands Upolu Vanuatu % of households fishing primarily for local consumption 99 87 83 50 35 Source: Bettencourt et al.. ensuring communities obtain different foods and also forming the basis for social relations. 1995). dried fish is taken to local inland markets. White and Cruz-Trinidad.. these resources were used heavily by women and female-headed households. 1988). young. poorer households. 1995). such as molluscs. has been associated with declining fisheries production as a result of degraded reef resources (McAllister. 2003). 1998). but it lacks fishing grounds. the island of Falalap is ecologically favoured for the production of vegetables. which may be accessed easily by foot and collected by hand. 2003). In Sri Lanka. 1996).. 1998). which is considered as a way of life. Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginal peoples continue the practice of sharing marine and freshwater foods as a way of helping continue customary relationships between indigenous people and their environment and strengthening their ties of kinship (FRDC. particularly female-headed households. there is a moral obligation to share fish catches and food with ones’ elders as a mark of support and respect (Teiwaki. Conversely.. 21 . In the Philippines it has been estimated that 50% of the population is reliant on fish for their primary source of protein and a large proportion of fish products originate from reef fisheries (McAllister. pregnant or old. in order to obtain free fish or other assistance (Rengasamy et al. which in turn relies predominantly on fisheries due to the scarcity of agricultural land (Adams et al.. where it is exchanged for other agricultural food products and clothing (Wilson et al. reef fish are often used as a means of paying school tuition fees or gaining a favour from an official (Singh and Andrews.. In the South Pacific. undertake activities such as net mending. are also often relied on as the only source of protein for the very poor. 1993).BOX 13 EXCHANGE AND BARTER OF REEF PRODUCTS In the Andaman Islands.. damaged fish or certain parts of fish are typically a cheap food source for poor people (Figure 16). Those reef resources. 1995. In Papua New Guinea reef products were an important trading commodity with inland villages (Ruddle. increasing levels of child malnutrition amongst coastal communities in the Philippines. Despite the erosion of reciprocal sharing with the introduction of cash economies and modernization. In Montego Bay. often providing the only source of protein for some of the poorest and most disadvantaged members of the community (Wilson et al. Among. Consequently. 1988. 1979). and 80% of coastal fisheries production consumed directly by the producer and their communities (Adams et al.. fish products underpinned ceremonial exchanges and non-ceremonial barter linking coastal fishing communities with inland agricultural communities and allowing the redistribution of food stuffs and surpluses (Young. other islands are favoured with fishing but lack a freshwater lens essential for extensive vegetable cultivation. the reciprocal exchange of vegetables for fish and vice versa takes place. In Northern Mozambique. Small. Furthermore. exchange and networks between the islands (Ruddle. people are primarily rural dwellers relying on a subsistence economy. 1993). In Ulithi Atoll in the Pacific. fish constitutes two thirds of the animal protein consumed and at least 50% of the fish species caught are directly dependent on the reef (Ohman et al. 1988). In the Gulf of Mannar. Coastal fisheries are vital to the nutrition of the rural people of the Pacific Islands (Table 10). 1992). the internal organs and head of sharks in Sri Lanka are mainly consumed by low income groups (Rajendran et al. the practice of sharing within a community may also ensure that vulnerable people are looked after and elderly fishermen recall sharing their catch with mothers and illegitimate children. 2001). Jamaica. coastal communities of Northern Mozambique.

Chinese medicine has also traditionally valued the properties of reef and reef-associated products. Where communities have had long associations with the reef resources. for poorer households.3 A source of local knowledge A high dependence on natural resources leads to an intimate knowledge of those resources and ways with which to extract them.2. while the meat is thought to help muscle development. Erdmann http://www.reefbase. This knowledge is also a resource which is essential for the safety and survival of fishers as they navigate and fish in a potentially dangerous environment. 1981). to successfully access and exploit the reef resource.2.addition to local medicinal benefits. which is typically passed on informally and built up through experience enables poor communities. when available. including: • • • • • • • Crabs – Kan nandu crab is useful for coughs and colds. Figure 16 Women sorting trash fish. locally known as Vallakavadi is used in a paste as a common home remedy to treat cysts or stys in the eye (Hoon. Sea horses and sea lizards: are believed to help heart problems. Indonesia. a knowledge which reflects the diversity of the reef and encompasses species-specific information.4. In 2. Coralline island herb: the Anjalai herb is used to treat sea snakes bites. With the emergence of modern medicines and health care.2 Medicinal contribution Apart from their nutritional contributions to health. This knowledge. without access to sophisticated equipment or years of formal education. such as sea cucumbers and sea horses. On the Lakshadweep Islands. BOX 14 MEDICINAL VALUES OF REEF PRODUCTS Among the coastal communities of the Gulf of Mannar a wide range of reef and reef-associated near-shore species are known and used.. as well as a broader understanding of ecosystem processes and linkages (Box 15).4. Shark: the meat is believed to help muscle development.2. Dugong: the fat is believed to control digestive disorders.. 2001). a South West Island of Palau. together with the wealth of local knowledge of many reef users has promoted the development of a wide range of diverse fishing techniques. however. On Hawaii Terebellid worms are used medicinally (Spalding et al. while Kuzhi crab is used to reduce urea Fish – Soodai and Mural fish have a high iron content and are used to prevent anemia. the traditional use of reef products in this way has become less common. 22 .org/ 2. with little access to alternatives.4.4 A diversity of skills The diversity of coral reef resources. 2003) In Palau. reef products may also provide medicinal benefits. the money cowrie. Source: Mark V. an understanding of the medicinal properties of many of the reef species has been widely exploited (Box 14). (From: Rengasamy et al. Sea turtle meat: is used to treat piles. for their medicinal properties. and on Tobi. the medicinal properties of reef products offer ongoing benefits. creating a sizeable (if sometimes illegal) market and income earning opportunities for local reef fishers. the local community use a particular Surgeon fish for the treatment of common chancre sores and fever (Johannes. People around the world who are dependent on coral reefs demonstrate a considerable understanding of the reef resource. 2. Rabbit fish gall bladders are used for medicinal purposes. 2003).

fishermen exploit their knowledge of lunar spawning cycles and daily and seasonal migrations across the reef to time their fishing activities effectively and learning this information is an essential part of becoming a good fisherman (Johannes. hand-lines (single or multiple hooks. 1981). On the Lakshadweep Islands. have knowledge of numerous different types of fish and where they can be found according to the tide or lunar cycle (Hoon. fishermen have names for over 300 species of fish. with or without bait). during which locals furiously harvested the palolo worms to be consumed as a local delicacy (Gibbings. comm. with names revealing such information as habitat. 1949). In Palau.1998). appearance. their pattern of reef exploitation is typically well developed and reef users will possess a diversity of practical skills associated with the variety of fishing techniques employed. 1998). Source: James Oliver http://www. such as the use of a nerve toxin released from the skin of sea Figure 17 Women using a net in a shallow lagoon. on-going CORDIO research has so far catalogued a total of 188 local folk taxa for species exploited from the coral reefs around Diani and Chale (David Obura and Innocent Wanyoni. or folk taxa. as well as physical and behavioural characteristics (Pollnac . as well as a knowledge of the tidal cycles and weather patterns. Philippines the folk taxonomy used by local fishers distinguishes hundreds of marine vertebrates and invertebrates and is used to indicate their economic and cultural significance. In Samoa. numerous types of nets. scare lines and illegal techniques such as cyanide and dynamite (Pollnac. An example of the level of local or indigenous knowledge is revealed in local naming systems. smell. 350 unique folk taxa exist for cartilaginous and bony fish. In Atulayan Bay. spear guns. each employing a diversity of different gears and targeting specific reef areas and species (Hoon. on the east coast of Unguja Island. fish corral. targeting different species and different reef habitats (Figures 17 and 18). Zanzibar. biting habits and appearance (Johannes. 2002 pers. In Atulayan Bay. taste and interaction with fishing gear (Foale.org/ 23 . For the coastal inhabitants of Chwaka Bay. 16 different fishing methods were encountered on one island alone.BOX 15 EXAMPLES OF LOCAL KNOWLEDGE OF REEF RESOURCES In many coastal communities of the world. local knowledge has accumulated through centuries of reef dependency and is demonstrated by both the men and women who exploit the reef.). and variations in wind and temperature mapped through the solar calendar. On the Southern Kenya coast. local elders were able to accurately predict the biannual ‘rising of the palolo’. Philippines. which might last only a few hours. 19 different fishing methods were encountered including gleaning. In the Solomon Islands. 1998). 2003). enable locals to successfully organize and schedule their fishing and agricultural activities and exploit the shallow and complex nearshore resources (Tobisson et al. such as the growth rate of important shell species or the daily and seasonal migrations of fish species and location and timing of fish spawning aggregations. a South West Island of Palau. and in Tobi. Indonesia.reefbase. 1998). Where coastal communities have interacted with the reef resource for many generations. an intimate knowledge of tidal variations mapped by a detailed mental lunar calendar. The Lakshadweep islanders. In Palau. 200 different fish species are differentiated with names again indicating characteristics such as species’ feeding preferences. In Palau. a combination of knowledge and skill is demonstrated in many fishing techniques. aggregating devices.. behaviour. Local knowledge also encompasses an awareness of natural processes. which affect resource availability.Tanzania. a mass spawning event. 2003). 1981).

who have little alternative resources to exploit. These activities are important in providing an opportunity for exchange and in creating and reaffirming relationships. bonds and networks within a community. also known as reef gleaning.BOX 16 COMMUNAL EXPLOITATION OF REEF RESOURCES In the South Pacific Islands and Palau.5 Social resources 2. together with children and the elderly. clothes and pocket money (Stirrat. where two households might engage in ‘partnership work’. IMM Ltd. In Montego Bay. Assistance and labour in fishing may also be exchanged at the landing site. In the Lakshadweep Islands. allows and frequently requires exploitation to be undertaken as a communal or collaborative activity. India.2. Johannes.2.2. Jamaica. 1981). sometimes with many members of the community taking part (Box 16).5.5. particularly during the south west monsoon when the beaches are too steep even for the smallest boat (Stirrat. where. It may act as a means of sharing physical or human resources amongst the community. is an activity encountered throughout the world among communities adjacent to shallow reefs. households with a surplus of teenage boys. 2. for example. certain fish landing sites were identified as important places for the community to exchange and network and were associated with a strong sense of community and social activity (Bunce and Gustavson. Communal harvest on the reef flats by foot. opportunities for labouring on fishing boats provide the most immediate and accessible livelihood option in fishing commun- ities and are an important way for new migrants to build up trust and relationships in the community (Singh and Andrews. in exchange for assisting with fishing activities. an activity which could not be done otherwise. They are essential for the subsistence and survival of many isolated island communities and poor coastal communities. may ‘lend’ a son to another household. Gulf of Mannar. In Papua New Guinea. Collaborative activities also function to reduce the risks involved in ‘going it alone’. in Sri Lanka fishermen from a common landing site are expected to assist one another in dragging each other’s boats ashore. involving 25–30 men is carried out around three times a week during the monsoon season mainly to provide food for household consumption (Hoon.3 and 2. Such a diversity of skills and wealth of knowledge have evolved simultaneously in order to successfully exploit the diverse reef resource. and as well as providing food and income benefits (discussed in Sections 2. 1995). food.4). 1995.. he will receive training in fishing skills.2. at times the whole community. 1988). it is also important in providing a social time between women and a chance to be together away from the house and village. customs and traditions (Box 17). Communal activities may also be important in enhancing an individuals’ sense of community through cooperation and sharing and in this way reduce conflict and assist newcomers in integrating in the community.2.2 Customs and traditions Among traditional coastal communities. It is an activity which is often carried out by groups of women. so helping households to overcome a lack or surplus of manpower or fishing gear. In the Andaman Islands. 2003). 2. cucumber to paralyse large edible sea anemones or octopi. In the 24 . or mimicking the sounds of fish underwater to attract and locate fish prey (Johannes. Figure 18 Cast netting in a shallow lagoon. a collaborative fishing operations. group spear fishing and roop fishing (also known as the ‘leaf sweep’) is undertaken on the reef involving large numbers of men. 2003). 1998). 1988). coral reef systems and the near-shore fisheries they support are often the focus of elaborate belief systems. Such is the case in Sri Lanka.1 Communal exploitation The complex physical structure and often close proximity of the reef to the shore. traditional use of nets. whilst another has a shortage in relation to fishing gear (Stirrat. 1981). spear fishing and coral collection from the reef flats were all collaborative activities (Lokani. or ‘havula rassava’ in situations where one household has a surplus of labour. 1988). known as Bala Fadal. These may be important activities to provide large quantities of food for social events (Dalzell et al. So typically. Source: Emma Whittingham.

were avoided throughout the year (McClanahan et al. For example. who spread social groups and their languages across the landscape in a particular way. the people’s association with the land and sea is based on the belief that land and seascapes were created by ancestral beings. the turtle is considered a sacred species and particular rules govern a fisherman’s relationship with it (Gibbings. elaborate cultural beliefs and rituals of sacrifice are associated with particular sacred sites along the coast (on land and at sea). consist of a complexity of spiritual associations. The activity of fishing is also often the focus of myths and rituals. Particular reef areas may be considered sacred due to the presence of ancestral spirits or monstrous creatures. At certain times of the year. 1978.. In the Lakshadweep Islands. India. 1998). lobster is a special ceremonial food item for mass feast occasions. as is the practice of appeasing and requesting favours from the spirits that inhabit them. Elsewhere in India. age groups or genders from catching or eating them (Johannes. 1988). sacred sites at sea were avoided for fear of upsetting the spirits. 1996). The beliefs underpinning CMT or traditional management. Fisherfolks are warned that in order to escape from the wrath of deities they should not approach this area (Rengasamy et al. the origins of certain deities are associated with fishing and the sea and rituals may be performed at every stage of fishing in an attempt to reduce hazards or to ensure a 25 . India. the turtle occupies an important place in Hindu mythology and is considered sacred among the fishermen of Tamil Nadu (Bavinck. fishing is a feature of numerous myths and rituals and the origin of some fishing techniques and locations of good fishing grounds are derived from myth (Teiwaki. In Tonga. 1995). 1996. Veitayaki. more fish and general well-being (Hoon. In Samoa. 1949). In India. parts of Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean. such as weddings or birthdays (Udagawa et al. 2003). Certain beliefs and rituals focus on particular reef species. locals believe that Appa Island is the home of an island God (Santhanamariamman) and by pleasing this God they will be protected from evil spirits when they stay on the island. Ruddle. Other species may even be believed to be magical and the focus of worship. Certain species may also be of ceremonial importance. In Papua New Guinea some clans believe that their home reefs were created by their ancestors. complex belief systems are prevalent and often manifest themselves in systems of customary marine tenure (CMT) or traditional management. 1993).. 1994). 1992). and provide a sense of well-being. 1995). 2001). where traditional Hindu society recognised individual species as objects of worship. They are also a source of individual and community identity and social status. 1980). 1995). Lokani. In Kiribati. which govern access to and use of reef resources and form the basis of social relationships both within a community and between communities (Ruddle et al. or their use as burial sites or for other rituals. and have helped perpetuate fishing knowledge and beliefs systems. The origin of particular fishing techniques are often found in local myth or legends (Box 18). Other sacred sites associated with unusual phenomena or danger. There are even stories of a sea ghost baluvam. It is also believed that another god (Muniyasamy) resides in a coral mound just near the island and close to an area known for dangerous currents and an underwater cave.. which may confer special status on an individual. which themselves are the very basis of a fishing communities’ cultural identity (Raychaudhuri. 2003). Pacific Islands.. dried dugong skin is used in agricultural ceremonies and healing rituals in Papua New Guinea (Schug. with a variety of mythology surrounding them (Nichols. totemic and other taboos may be placed on certain reef food species. whose coming to shore is considered as a harbinger of prosperity for that year. and they may also attribute spiritual powers to reefs and submerged rocks in this area (Asafu-Adjaye. restricting particular clans. bonding groups through their common beliefs and rights (Johannes et al. known as Odams. People identify as being a member of a kin group with a particular language area associated with certain areas of land and sea and sharing responsibility for the protection and use of these areas (Innes. there is hardly any tale or song which does not mention the traditional sailing crafts. In the South Pacific. the journeys of enterprising ‘heroes’ and the adventures of fishing in the sea. 2000). They include beliefs and rules. rituals and myths encompassing communities and their surrounding natural world on land and sea. Among the coastal communities of the Gulf of Mannar. a benevolent ghost. and this will govern the way they are used and by whom (Innes. 1991.BOX 17 EXAMPLES OF BELIEFS ASSOCIATED WITH REEF AREAS For the Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginals of Australia. In Kenya. 1996).. in parts of the South Pacific shark worship was common and sharks were believed to be the embodiment of the souls of deceased ancestors. families. bringing more coconuts. for example.

1. 1994) themselves (Bunce and Gustavson. 2. As a result. In Montego Bay. Jakarta Mandate of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA)). in the Gulf of Mannar and Andaman and Nicobar Islands). 1980).1 Policies 2. which has been passed down from generation to generation. In Papua New Guinea. 1997). nature conquered. the Gulf of Mannar.BOX 18 A FIJIAN LEGEND ‘There was once a shipwrecked rat. the promise was broken. In some coastal communities (e. 1973). Considerable prestige may be attached to the man skilled in ritual knowledge and in possession of magical powers that enable him to have success in fishing (Hogbin. 2001.3. which involves cleaning their boats and applying kungumam (saffron) and sandalwood paste and lighting camphor. In this wider environment there are a range of factors that influence the way people are able to access and use the resources available to them.g. and has plans to good catch (Bavinck. Hajra. 1980). social relations. octopus. Jamaica.g.The rescuer made sure the rescued understood in no uncertain terms that. he would bear his passenger. Fishing activities and associated beliefs may give special status to individuals or groups in a community. Mukherjee. which target biodiversity. Like the elephant. In Palau. Raychaudhuri. only if he first received an assurance that he was “house broke” and a solemn promise that the rat remember his manners. the octopus never forgets! Fijian mothers tell this story to their daughters. Global Environment Facility (GEF) funds. who when near to drowning was rescued by a kind-hearted. but alas. though wary. Wilson et al. UNDP-GEF coral reef biodiversity projects in the Maldives and in India. keeping nature at bay until he was delivered safely ashore. which makes rat squeaking sounds as it’s rapidly thrust in and out of holes on the reef. 1998). is used to attract the octopus. decisionmaking and negotiation. Fishing is often considered a way of life and an integral part of social and economic existence.. fishing is associated with particular castes and is considered a traditional occupation and way of life. UNDP and UNEP for coral reef-related projects (e. 1970.g. politics. India and Northern Mozambique) to be a fisherman is considered of greater status than to be a farmer. A ratshaped lure. Millions of US dollars have been spent by the World Bank financing the development of a global system of marine protected areas to conserve biodiversity (Hatziolos.. significant funds have been allocated specifically for coral reef conservation and management. for it is by reminding the octopus of the rat who “did him wrong” that the fisherwomen are able to catch the octopus. 1995). 2.3 ENHANCING INTERACTIONS WITH DIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS The livelihoods of reef-dependent people not only rely on the resources that are available to them. in order to bring good fortune to fishing (Rengasamy et al.’ (From:Wright. In India and Sri Lanka. This method of octopus fishing is recognised to be one of the few which women only are allowed to practice. 1968. as land was a long way off. and at the moment the rat leapt ashore.1 Conservation The biodiversity of coral reefs has been a magnet for research and scientific interest and has raised the profile of coral reefs to global significance. but also to the wider environment in which they operate. 2003). certain individuals were believed to possess a mixture of magical powers and special knowledge of fish behaviours. The reef ecosystems allow reefdependent people to interact with those influencing factors in special ways that confer benefits upon them. there is no higher accolade than to be called a ‘real fisherman’ and great pride is associated with fishing skill and knowledge (Johannes. The promise was readily given. such that in Northern Mozambique regardless of the relative time spent fishing it is preferable to be labelled a fisher than a farmer (Rengasamy et al. fishers perceive their activity as an intrinsic part of the community and 26 . Agenda 21 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). have been used considerably by the World Bank. recognized in international environmental policy and conventions (e. adding to its US$5 million received in 2001 to initiate reef management and conservation activities over the next four years. For example. 1981). giving them the authority to perform a traditional form of management known as Kieching (Lokani. made of a shell tied to a piece of reed or willow. Direct influencing factors include a complex range of factors resulting from history. an institution of magicians has developed in India specifically to counteract poisonous bites of sea creatures (Raychaudhuri. religion. 2003).3. At dusk every Tuesday in the Gulf of Mannar. culture. 2003. The International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN) recently received US$3 million at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). local fishermen will undertake a ritual called Neeratuthal.

in interpreting the 1976 Torres Strait Treaty preference has been given to the interests of coastal villages. 2001).5% was imposed on imported canned fish.1. 2. with the objective of increasing the supply of fish to urban areas on central islands and providing opportunities of increased cash earnings on outer islands (MIMRA. implementation of the FAO ‘Action Programme on the Promotion of Fisheries in the Alleviation of Malnutrition’ led to fisheries development policies aimed at increasing the use of 27 . which in turn provide opportunities to small-scale reef fishers. 1997). and increasing numbers are being recruited as staff for the GBR Marine Park Authority (Benzaken et al. The adoption of international standards of human rights has led to specific policies and legislation registering and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples.The formal recognition of systems of customary marine tenure strengthen and empower these systems and bring a range of associated benefits to indigenous communities.3 Trade and fisheries development Coral reef diversity and productivity offer opportunities for implementation of fisheries development policies. The international attention and support focused on coral reefs is also reflected in the national policies and funding of coral reef nations.. import duty on imported fish and meat has been imposed as a means of reducing trade deficits and increasing support for local fisheries. or protecting and developing local production. in the Surin Islands. the second 5year development plan promotes the development of existing small-scale fisheries in the outer islands. as well as export revenue for national economies (Section 2. the Ministry of Environment and Forests has established the Indian Coral Reef Monitoring Network (ICRMN). through the recognition of traditional and indigenous reef-dependent communities and the importance and value of their rights and knowledge. Such attention has the potential to bring benefits to local communities. such as pearls and the sacred chank (Drewes. The recognition of the value of indigenous traditions and knowledge has also led to the introduction of formal courses on this subject in local schools.2. This has had significant relevance to those communities with customary or traditional associations with the land and sea. ignoring inland groups who also claim a relationship with the marine resource of the Torres Strait. 1981).3.raise a minimum of US$25 million to continue these activities over the next decade. In the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. In India. For example. elders teach traditional knowledge in primary and secondary schools (Ruddle. In the Marshall Islands. A diversity of reef products attract the attention of lucrative export markets. and over the last three years has allocated and distributed funds for monitoring activities in each of the four major coral reef areas. in the Solomon Islands. particularly those focused on expanding export markets. 1995). Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders have been involved in the co-operative management of dugong and turtles. where conservation efforts embrace concepts such as sustainable and equitable livelihoods and coastal community development. Recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples may confer greater participation in government-led policy planning and implementation. BOX 19 THE RECOGNITION OF INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES IN TORRES STRAIT The 1976 Torres Strait Treaty reflects a concern for the rights of indigenous people in its recognition of ‘the importance of protecting the traditional way of life and livelihood’ of Torres Strait indigenous people and its requirement that people preserve the traditional customary rights of access to and use of land and marine resources. In the Philippines and Thailand. 1981). for example.3.3). Thailand. 1982). 1993). In the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) World Heritage Area increasing acknowledgement of indigenous rights and interests has led to greater involvement and participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander communities in planning. for example. The small-scale nature of coral reef fisheries also benefit from policies targeting the development of local artisanal fisheries. an import duty of 37.2 Indigenous rights Coral reefs have also been the focus of attention on indigenous rights. For example. Similarly. In Tokelau. policy formulation. 1995) 2. fishery policy in the sixth 5-year plan supports the promotion of fishbased industries with specific reference to reef-based products. which define their rights over and use of reef resources (Box 19). Thus. (From: Schug. In certain Pacific Islands. and represent an important source of income to coastal communities.3. where imported canned fish has frequently replaced the market for local fresh fish (Johannes.1. However. supporting trade diversity. participation of local indigenous people in the management of the national park has been promoted in response to the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People (UNESCO. while in Western Samoa a 34% import duty was imposed (Johannes. assessment and management of the GBR marine resources. the interpretation of formal treaties and legislation in distributing rights may often be the cause of conflict among communities.

Such programmes are common throughout the South Pacific. transport and market reef products. which becomes a safety net at times of crisis or during festival periods.3. when expenditure is high (Rengasamy et al.org/ times of crisis. the impact of policies of land privatisation. The impact of structural adjustment policies resulting in the displacement of people from their original livelihoods.1 Markets and private enterprise The diversity of coral reef products attract a diversity of market outlets. handle. government policy encouraged the creation of ‘fishing colonies’. These trading institutions are vital for the livelihoods of many poor coastal communities. 1986). Figure 20 Fisherman with sea urchin catch. 2. for many it is critical for survival: providing access to fishing gear. which typically have disproportionate effects on disadvantaged groups by reducing their access to land resources. on the island of Niue. Local fisheries resources may even be the target of structural adjustment policies.. and supporting households in Figure 19 A widow and trader sorting the crab catch. 1988).1. 1995). absorbing short-term losses.2. as laid off government workers turned to the reef fishery to meet their income and other needs (Pasisi. Philippines. which may be a part of fisheries and trade development policies aimed at increasing stocks of valuable reef products and promoting commercial extraction and associated financial benefits for local communities. may be absorbed by the coral reef fishery.4 Structural adjustment Coral reefs also play a role in supporting people as they cope and adapt to changing policies in other sectors.3. for example. Source: Emma Whittingham. which resulted in the movement of large numbers of people from the south to resource rich areas along the north-west coast (Stirrat. in Tonga a Japanese-funded Aquaculture Research and Development Project aims to enhance stocks of giant clams. Source: James Oliver http://www. which are composed of an often complex system of traders and private entrepreneurs linking the fisher to the consumer (Figures 19 and 20). indebting and bonding poor households to traders. providing vital infrastructure support required to process. 2. Gulf of Mannar. 1988). private traders provide the only easily accessible from of credit. the local credit system provided a third of all credit and allowed local villagers to meet basic daily expenditures.local fisheries products for the alleviation of malnutrition (Heel. For poor households in coastal villages of the Gulf of Mannar. For the small-scale reef fishers. In the 1950s in Sri Lanka.reefbase. Traders may also provide opportunities for fishers to access seasonal migratory fishing opportunities and thereby overcome 28 . may again be assimilated by the multiple and accessible options offered by the coral reef resource. private traders often provide access to high value export markets and are the only accessible source of credit available for poorer households. For example. While such credit provision is frequently inequitable. 2003). regardless of the availability of immediate income (Stirrat. In the Sri Lankan village of Ambakandawila. relying on local villagers to manage nursery stocks on their local reefs (Sone and Lotoahea 1995). as well as major expenditures for fishing gear. Similarly. Coral reefs also provide habitats for stock enhancement programmes. for example.3. India. IMM Ltd.2 Institutions 2. cut backs in government sector jobs resulted in a corresponding increase in fishing pressure on reef flats and slopes.

2. 1992). complex and deep-rooted associations between the communities and their natural environment have manifested in a diversity of beliefs and traditions (Section 2.3. traditional management may provide numerous benefits: promoting equity. In this way. traditional management forms the framework for social relations and negotiation. Provided the relevant rules of conduct are followed. the Fisheries Department. However. 2003). or for the development and welfare of the local fishing communities (development and social welfare departments and agencies). who typically lack access to formal structures and processes. smallscale fisheries they support. Where such institutions’ objectives and activities reflect the needs and aspirations of the local coastal communities and the poor. India. Other traditional management measures included a variety of 29 . India.. The control of traditional management extends beyond the activities of a single community.3. which are widely encountered in systems of traditional management. Rules apply equally to outsiders and local fishers. depending on their financial and human resources and objectives. training in hygienic handling and processing of fisheries products). through local extension offices. the actual benefits arising from relevant government institutions is highly variable. local associations or panchayats will regulate how people exploit the adjacent inshore area. 1968). During the south west monsoon. On some Pacific Islands.g. Throughout Oceania.2). access and use of near-shore coral reef resources through systems of beliefs. the management of the local fishery (fisheries departments and agencies). It also defined social relationships and boundaries between neighbours. sharing. Where coral reefs form part of the local environment. 2. frequently low in many developing countries amongst the poorer members of the community. and local monitoring and management of resources. in Sri Lanka. 1992). through the provision of training to introduce new activities or enhance existing ones (e. through a system of rules relating to types and application of fishing gear. they are an integral part of these traditional management systems. 1992). fish traders support the seasonal migration of 60–70 West Bengali fishers to the coastal community of Guptapara. On South Andaman Island. on which some elderly widows are completely dependent to support themselves (Rengasamy et al. concerned either with the conservation of the reef resource (environment departments and agencies). rules and social norms. In the same place. are the focus of various government institutions. management measures intending to conserve the resource and ensure future sustainability were clearly the outcome of an awareness of the limited nature of the resource and the isolation of the population (Ruddle et al. 2003). has provided important benefits. in Northern Mozambique. 2001.seasonal lows in local fishing or activities in other sectors. 1978).2. for example.2 Government institutions Coral reef and associated resources and the near-shore. has recently begun targeting women’s groups to improve their livelihood status. giving anyone the right to fish in a particular area as long as they abide by the local rules (Bavinck. In the Solomon Islands. In Tamil Nadu. traders arrange credit to cover basic accommodation and food requirements at temporary fishing camps on the north east coast and guarantee to purchase fish and transport to distant markets (Stirrat. coastal rightsholding groups exchanged access to their marine resources with inland forest or ‘bush’ right-holding groups. 2001).3 Traditional management systems In many communities of the world. For example.. 1988).2. the infrastructure of relevant government institutions at a local village level is extremely weak and in most cases non-existent (Wilson et al.5. Traditional management systems. despite the obvious scope for providing benefits to local communities. Decentralised local government structures may also play a role in supporting local level management of resources. it also governs interactions with neighbouring communities and outsiders. 2003). Mukherjee. while small-scale fishing is typically open access. This was an important way to obtain reef products absent in your own fishing ground or unavailable due to bad weather (Johannes. The Nenema people of northern New Caledonia. they may bring a stream of different benefits. are often associated with sustainable livelihoods. For those communities or family groups possessing the access rights or tenure over a reef area. Village panchayats also function to settle disputes over fishing activities within or between villages and provide a means of legitimising local level decisions relating to matters of common interest (Bavinck. access may be permitted to exploit the resources of a neighbour. through direct intent or simply as the byproduct of another purpose.. through the provision of pensions and relief to widows of fishermen. For example. it was common for permission to fish in a neighbours fishing ground to be granted in exchange for a portion of the catch. enabling each group to exploit important resources outside their traditional territory (Ruddle et al. and defines the form and extent of access to local resources (Box 20). in the Gulf of Mannar. to access the lucrative reef fishery for export markets (Singh and Andrews. condemned wastage and thus avoided catching in excess of what could be consumed (Teulieres. which define ownership. the Revenue Department.. These benefits are 2.

and what should be done before. areas were declared as taboo. where. 1999) In Kiribati. In the Solomon Islands and in Fiji license fees. or because the area had been over-fished (Johannes. harm to the majority style fishing (or potential gear conflict). In other cases. including when to fish. at other times they may enact a temporary closure on a certain area of reef or reef species.BOX 20 TRADITIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS In Vanuatu. In Maluku. In Tamil Nadu. royalties or ‘goodwill’ payments are made by commercial bait fishers to the traditional owner of a fishing ground in order to access the right to fish for bait (Rawlinson.g. the Fisheries Department both recognises and encourages the traditional management practices of local villages. (From:Teiwaki. which declined under colonial administration. the waters in which the body was washed would be closed. For example. who then gain access to exploit commercially valuable fin and shell fish resources (Ruddle. 1994). which has enabled the development of a co-operative approach to the management of the Trochus 30 . 1995). such as industrial bait fishing. In Oceania. for example. forbidding fishing for ritual reasons and to ensure a large catch for a feast or celebration. e. and harm to the social cohesion of the community (Bavinck. (From: MRAG. in the Solomon Islands. Closures are often associated with cultural events or ceremonies. pearl oysters and giant clam. It was regarded as sinful to exploit a reef not belonging to one’s family without first requesting permission and there was a moral obligation to allow reciprocal access to both maternal and paternal relatives. In Indonesia. 2001). small-scale fishery activities have traditionally been regulated through taboos and omens controlled by community elders.These beliefs and rules govern where and when to fish as well as how one should fish. marine tenure has been amalgamated into ‘community’ tenure of a group of clans. families have pledged traditional ownership rights over reef areas as collateral for loans from entrepreneurs. 2003). 1988) Along the Kenya coastline. extending beyond the physical boundaries of the reef resource. while it might be explicitly stated that the purpose of a closure was for conservation to promote tourism. rights to access and use of areas of near-shore reef are held by individual clans. during and after each fishing expedition. the traditional practice of ‘Sasi’ functioned to ensure reef species were allowed to reproduce. grow and accumulate and that heavily exploited areas of reef were allowed to regenerate (Thorburn. coastal rightsholding groups have resisted inland logging and mining developments in forest rights-holding territories over concern for damage to reef resources through river-borne sedimentation (Ruddle et al. 1978). These fees are kept as a common fund and spent on village festivals or common expenses (Rengasamy et al. Each island had its own rules about fishing. a fee is imposed on outsiders to operate shore nets adjacent to the village or use the village fish landing site. (From: Glaesel. Recognition of traditional management by local governments has also empowered local level involvement in policy formation and implementation. how to fish and where to fish. to honour the death of a chief. rules may ban the use of a specific fishing gear. it may be the basis for negotiating with outsiders over access rights in return for fees or royalties and in this way act as a means of income generation. as well as inland logging and mining developments (Hviding. customary practices involved an intricate system of mutual sharing and obligation. there may also be significant implicit reasons for closure. and act to maintain social control and access to common pool resources. In the village of Thavukadu in the Gulf of Mannar. or. Indonesia. where previously independent and isolated clans have moved into proximity and coalesced. when and by whom resources may be harvested. In some cases. 1993). such as strengthening claims to adjacent land or making a political statement to the wider community. local village gear restrictions are motivated by a desire to minimize harm to the community in three ways: harm to the fish stock. Compliance with these rules ensured maximum productivity and equitable sharing in the community. India. active traditional management systems have facilitated the involvement of local communities in steering the course of externally initiated activities. diving-based tourism.. the cultivation of seaweed.. 2001). In Vanuatu.Within marine territories fishery activities are governed by rules which dictate how. In contemporary times. 2000) restrictions on fishing practices. where traditional management is recognized and supported by government and legislation. under the traditional sea tenure. 1992). and there was no apparent evidence of deprivation or lack of access to the sea and its resources.

an awareness which was the product in part of efforts associated with the GOMMBR. which are typically recognised as being an adult male domain. These organisations may have powerful voices in decision-making. in India the Gujarat Fisheries Central Cooperative Association provided credit and loans.3. INDIA For the small-scale fisherfolk of the Gulf of Mannar.3 Organisations In the same way that the biodiversity of coral reefs has attracted recognition in international policy. These were in recognition of the danger and damage caused by these activities.4. and brought about a number of successful local management measures. • A locally agreed ban on dynamite fishing and coral mining (reinforcing the official government ban).The union provides the only common channel through which problems and issues can be voiced at higher levels by local fisherfolk.org/ 31 . This has led to increasing participation of local communities in monitoring and an increasing recognition amongst institutional stakeholders of the wide range of reef stakeholders and their diverse needs. with 80% of small-scale fishers (men and women) being active members. and looked after the welfare of its members (Hajra. The reef fishery is also the focus of local organisations. or reef gleaning (Box 22. increasing conflicts with commercial fishing operations and the restrictions imposed by the Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve (GOMMBR). and a ban on the use of a metal tool for seaweed harvest. Fiji. regional (e. Figure 21). 1994). it is also the target of a multitude of initiatives and NGOs at international (e.. Source: James Oliver. the most important organisation at the village level is the Fisheries Union. assisted with fish processing and marketing.g. as well as individuals’ personal observations of the impacts of destructive practices.reefbase. thereby safeguarding the resource for the local small-scale fishers and reducing overall conflict in the fishing industry. In many instances. supplied low cost equipment. International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI). World Conservation Union (IUCN)). (From: Rengasamy et al. fishing co-operatives were set up to manage the marketing of fish products on behalf of the fishers. 1970). the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) works together with government institutions. In South Asia. 2003) 2.4 Social relations 2. This is a significant factor distinguishing reef-based fisheries from other near-shore fisheries. and resulted in a positive relationship between the government and community (Jimmy. BOX 21 THE FISHERIES UNION OF THE GULF OF MANNAR. http://www. Local participation in the Fisheries Union has empowered the small-scale fishers. such as fisheries co-operative societies and unions. NGOs and local reef stakeholders to co-ordinate and build capacity to inform management for the sustainable use of coral reef resources. which may provide a voice to local small-scale fishers and promote their interests. and where this coincides with the needs and aspirations of local resource users.3.g. But the potential for applying and combining the significant and valuable indigenous ecological knowledge and traditional management systems with formal scientific approaches to management and development is vast and as yet mostly untapped (Johannes. national and local levels. universities. Participation and reliance on unions has strengthened in recent years in response to degrading reef resources. without the need of a boat and so provide an opportunity for women. 1995). children and the elderly to access the reef and directly engage in harvesting activities. 2. UNEP Regional Seas Programmes). both with regards to the reef resource and other issues of welfare and equity (Box 21).3. aspirations and priorities.resource. this may bring positive impacts. For example. provided knowledge on new technology in fishing. with women and children restricted mainly Figure 21 Women reef gleaning.1 Gender and age Reef flats and shallow reef lagoons are accessible on foot. in order to reduce the control of independent traders and to allow fishers to receive better returns for their catch. including: • The restriction of commercial trawling activities within the ‘trapped sea’ between the islands and the mainland coast.

Hajra. in the South Pacific. Tuara. and despite it being illegal women in Sri Lanka often extract coral for lime production. 1992). Women from over two-thirds of households in the study communities were involved in intertidal mollusc collection. although the financial dependence on reef gleaning has diminished. in a coral reef fishery the diversity of options for exploitation and the physical accessibility of the reef opens up opportunities for direct participation by women and consequently increases their independence and the importance of their role in the Figure 22 Children reef gleaning. For elderly and households lacking formal education. It also provides a place for children to play and learn important skills and knowledge for fishing activities later in life (Figure 22). Philippines. http://www. 2001). it may also be the only source of food or income. 1995). to 17% in Western Samoa and 25–50% in Papua New Guinea (Tuara. 1968. 1998). Women also participate in making and mending fishing gear (in India. and are frequently involved in fish processing and marketing. and live by subsistence means alone. is still of great value (Hoon. in particular for widows (Elliot et al. which the women can control. 1981). Women are not only involved in reef gleaning. community. swimming and diving in shallow reef lagoons and in doing so build crucial skills for their future daily subsistence (UNESCO. as well as an opportunity for women to generate cash from excess mollusc harvest. Sulawesi. 1995). 1970 and Mukherjee. On the Lakshadweep Islands. 2003). Small-scale reef fisheries support the involvement of local women traders and their involvement can give them greater control over the household income and in negotiating for loans or credit. for elderly women. providing a key source of daily protein. Palau. (Wilson et al. is commonly the domain of women and children. However.org/ 32 . reef harvesting activities are particularly important to women. or reef gleaning. it is also the source of a wealth of knowledge about the reef resource. On a daily basis reef gleaning in many communities provides a regular supply of protein and may significantly enhance the nutritional status of households (Gina-Whewell. in the Surin Islands. 1995). in particular where this involves the use of boats (Bavinck. India. the extent of women’s contribution to marine foods ranges from 11% in Kiribati. Consequently. widows or wives of infirm men. its importance for women as a recreation. make and mend fishing gear.reefbase. Fish processing and marketing are activities often dominated by women and offer an important survival strategy for households with access to few other physical assets (such as boats and gear). Thailand. not only does reef gleaning provide a supplementary source of income. 2001)... 2003). where for 3–4 years young boys will use simple hand lines with a loop and bait at the end to learn the art of fishing and the behaviour of different fish species on the reef flats (Johannes. women typically dominate coral mining activities for which there are few alternative income-generating opportunities available. 2001). due to its accessibility and the pressure to generate additional income (Ekaratne et al. In certain seasons when weather limits access to more exposed parts of the reef. they also undertake coral mining activities. Their role is not only important in providing income to shore-based activities and often excluded from food collection and commercial harvesting activities. providing food and cash security for those lacking in other resources or those households lacking a main provider. reef gleaning forms an important share of household income. 2001). who cannot access jobs in the government sector. In Papua New Guinea. Source: John McManus.. Similarly. island women process lime from corals (Lokani. giving them some level control (although not guaranteed) over the household’s income. In the coastal communities of Northern Mozambique. In Wakatobi National Park. a break from household duties and a chance to chat together away from the men. women may be some of the most marginalised groups in a fishing community (Campbell and Beardmore. young Moken boys spend much of their time playing. which women accumulate from a young age.BOX 22 REEF GLEANING Exploitation of the reef flat on foot and by hand. On the islands of the Indo-Pacific. While for others. This is the custom in the South West Island of Tobi.

marine resources due to seasonal weather patterns. and the fishers dependent on them. 2001). Within the coral reef fishery there is a capacity to buffer the effects of local depletions. 1992). On Ulithi Atoll women have a distinct role and rights in the distribution of fish catches. fisheries. Coral reefs provide a number of benefits to people in coping with or adapting to indirect influencing factors. Fisheries may also provide opportunities to low caste inland villagers. In India. seasonal unavailability or seasonal lows in market demand of a single species. which make up the background context in which they live. IMM Ltd. In the Kei Islands. In Palau. or patterns of species abundance. In this way. the activity of reef fishing negates boundaries of class and clan to the extent that while fishing even a chief possesses no special authority and receives no special treatment (Johannes. (Thorburn. due to the multitude of alternative options (species or reef habitats) available. Systems of traditional management often play a role in defining the division of labour between men and women. create a relative stability as compared with other fisheries or indeed land-based agricultural production. with limited financial and physical resources (Singh and Andrews. 2003). Gulf of Mannar. and include gradual and predictable trends. combined with their physical and economic accessibility and the protection they provide against inclement weather. and availability of. made from mahogany logs from Yap Island are obtained through the exchange of cloth made by the women of Ulithi (Ruddle. which represented an important opportunity for the recently migrated households. 1986). sudden and unpredictable shocks and seasonality. marine and other resources 33 . up to 70% of women were involved in fish vending.2 Caste and class Customary laws and traditional management systems associated with reef resources may also have an impact on caste and class distinctions. which was attributed in part to the greater opportunities for women to participate in reef fisheries (Rengasamy et al.4. fishermen castes are among the lowest in the Hindu caste hierarchy and among the weakest politically and economically (Heel. confining women to access those foods harvested by hand (Teulieres.3. labour and financial resources are particularly reliant on exploiting natural resources and consequently they are vulnerable to seasonal changes in availability and markets for those resources. 2003). 1996). The diversity of coral reef fisheries. India. 2000). In the Gulf of Mannar. who may be employed to participate during seasonal peaks in fishing activities (Bavinck. it also underpins the local village economy (Heel. in fish marketing. In certain fishing communities on South Andaman Island. These are external variables over which people have little or no control. were considerably more independent and outgoing compared to their inland counterparts. indigenous property law divides Kei society into three classes or castes based on ancestry and heritable rights to land.. 2003). 2. India. However. Source: Emma Whittingham. This is because the canoe hulls. the various types of middleman or intermediary are considered non-caste occupations and therefore provide valuable opportunities as long as they do not disrupt the caste hierarchy (Raychaudhuri. 2. Indonesia. 1980). are subject to seasonal changes in access to. In the Gulf of Mannar. Furthermore.1 Seasonality Poor people with little access to land.Figure 23 Women cleaning crab nets.4. for their families. with access to sheltered areas of reefs open 2. India. the role of women in the small-scale fisheries is a key factor in providing them with independence to control income and spending and support the household (Figure 23). Women’s involvement is also frequently expressed as being pivotal in the local fishery and the importance of their involvement is demonstrated through women’s active participation in the Fisheries Union and local NGO activities (Rengasamy et al.4 THE ABILITY TO COPE WITH INDIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS The way in which people use their resources will be dependent on the risk and vulnerability associated with indirect influencing factors. 1981). it was observed that the women of the coastal Mooper caste.. 1986).

molluscs from the lagoon provide an important supplementary source of protein (Teiwaki. reef gleaning is an important resource. Often it is the shallow reef flat and lagoon. In Papua New Guinea. the hohobulu. Philippines. with the peak in fisheries production coinciding with the period of lowest agricultural stocks (Wilson et al.throughout the year. providing an important alternative to vegetable protein sources which increase in price during the rough weather season (Singh and Andrews. in times of inclement weather in Kiribati.. India.. the eastern-most village in the Gulf of Mannar. 2003). the reef can also buffer the affect of seasonal lows or inaccessibility in offshore fisheries. is gathered on nearby reefs and kept as a ‘clam farm’ until needed (Gina-Whewell. 1995). In many cases the reef is a keystone resource. as well as sources of income to buy other basic food stuffs (Wilson et al. 2003). used as a means of saving food for future times of need. sheltered from bad weather. However. offering a vital alternative source of subsistence and cushioning the impact of seasonal vulnerabilities. particularly agriculture. giant clams and sea cucumbers are seldom eaten during good weather in an effort to conserve their populations for months during which rough weather prohibits good fishing (Johannes. On the Lakshadweep Islands. In response. Coral reefs play a crucial role in sheltering the coast from the full impact of storms and protecting coastal infrastructure and agricultural lands. and provide the only protein source for the poorest households. and protein. In addition. 1982). In many places the reef may even act as a resource bank. the shallow reefs and lagoons provide a constant and stable food and income source all year around. In Indonesia. which washed away Dhaniskodi. as well as disturbances such as earthquakes and flooding originating on land. In this way. 1998). while agriculture is the primary means of food production. 1981). coastal communities and landless agricultural labourers had to ‘eat fish or starve’ during the severe droughts of 1966 and 1973–1974 (Rengasamy et al. Coral reefs may also provide a means of coping with the devastating effects of a climatic event in other sectors. in Northern Mozambique. 34 . 1988). coastal communities turned to the inshore reef resources in order to earn the quick cash needed to re-build their homes (Jimmy. Similarly. providing stability to households when agricultural production is low. Similarly. who are unable to stock up with food prior to the monsoon (Hoon. India. that are most utilised as keystone resources (Box 23). elderly villagers remember the 1964 cyclone. In the Gulf of Mannar.. the coral reef provides significant benefits to poor households in coping with hard times. the reef resources provide critical alternatives when agricultural crops are destroyed by animals (Box 24). near-shore and intertidal harvests provide key sources of food and cash when agriculture production is low. giant clams are collected and held in walled enclosures on the reef until they are needed in periods of rough weather (Johannes.4. a large proportion of the coastal population engage in sporadic subsistence fishing (Opnai and Aitsi 1995). a species of giant clam. Similarly. ensuring a supply of protein to local communities (Pollnac. throughout the year. On the Andaman Islands. exposed to weather variations. even during bad weather. Coral reef resources also offer an alternative to seasonal lows in other sectors. in New Georgia. distant fishing grounds and offshore areas are inaccessible. 2003). In Palau. 2003). In Manus. providing critical food resources. During the 1990s in Vanuatu. 2003). BOX 23 SEASONAL STABILITY OF REEFS DURING ROUGH WEATHER During low fishing periods in Atulayan Bay. In the drought-prone lands bordering the Gulf of Mannar. At these times. India during the rough weather season months. India. There are also many examples of reef resources cushioning the impact of drought and famine. and recall how those villages close to the reef and islands were protected from extreme weather (Rengasamy et al. from June to October. Papua New Guinea. as well as other near-by ecosystems (seagrass beds and mangroves). even low market value reef products may hold particular importance to poor people with limited alternative choices.2 Shocks The coastal zone is vulnerable to the impact of sudden sea-borne storms and cyclones. hundreds of thousands of subsistence fishers rely on coral reefs as a source of food security in times of agricultural hardship (Cesar.. 1992). Solomon Islands. In coastal communities in Northern Mozambique. reef resources provide a safety net during the periodic impact of drought on agricultural production. 2003). nearby reefs can still be reached and assure a source of income. 2. 1996). cyclones damaged much of the copra and cocoa crops important for income earning in local communities.

I am here to take care of your family’. We have tried to chase them away using fire. both due to local population growth and as a result of migrants. 2003) 2. who have lost their husbands and principal support. many rural farmers fled to the coast for protection during the war (Campbell and Beardmore. when demand and prices are sufficiently high (e.BOX 24 REEF RESOURCES AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO AGRICULTURE IN DARUMBA. which is a common occurrence in other near-shore fisheries. 2003) 35 . India. afford a sink for such migrants. (From: Rengasamy et al. BOX 25 CORAL REEFS AS A SAFETY NET FOR FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS IN THE GULF OF MANNAR..3. anything. elephants and warthogs. for example. Similarly. then this can lead to changing patterns of exploitation. prevents the use of modern industrial gear and thus the development of large-scale fisheries (Pomeroy. there was no need for her to go to the sea. often to the extent that they abandoned their traditional harvest of marine commodities.. Barriers for outsiders to enter a coral reef fishery are minimal. the accessible shallow reef resources provide a vital coping strategy for female-headed households (Box 25). In Indonesia. 2001). near-shore reef resources are vital for sustaining the household’s livelihood.4. Some reef products attract high demand and high prices (see Section 2. returning with cassava. 1994). 2000). displaced by conflict or pressures of livelihoods. As mentioned earlier.4. the diversity of products available has supported multiple opportunities for commercial extraction for local and foreign markets. She decided to work in the sea. but we have to share the harvest there each year with monkeys. 2003). Our only alternative is to depend more on fishing and shell collecting for food and money to buy food. but fail. for example. she is knowledgeable about the various types of species and which can be exploited for income.2.3). In these situations. reducing conflict and displacement by wealthier high tech industrial fisheries. hand-line fishing on the reef offers a critical safety net and coping mechanism. In this way. However. Since then all the four children in the household had to depend upon the sole income of their mother. alternative sources of income were sought from the reef and sea (Thorburn. In the Andaman Islands. After collecting oysters we will dry the meat on sticks and sell them in Macomia. providing a range of livelihood opportunities that are both physically and economically accessible. booming prices of cloves in the 1970s encouraged communities to develop clove gardens. providing a source of income and food until a new net can be purchased (Singh and Andrews. She harvests seaweed and shells from the reef flats. flour. for live fish for foreign aquaria or restaurants). with lost opportunities for income and food production.’ (From:Wilson et al. the physical nature of a coral reef. He was forced to give up fishing because of abdominal cancer of which he died. But the mother sea consoled her by saying ‘Come. drumming. and in many cases prevent abject poverty. INDIA The husband of a local woman was a fisherman. India. In the Gulf of Mannar.4. For coastal communities dependent on coral reef resources. offering opportunities for those with limited if any physical or financial resources. For widows or female-headed households. the rich coral reef resource has Coral reefs resources are also vital safety nets for the sudden loss of physical or human resources. maximizing the short-term profits available. with the emergence of intensive and often destructive techniques. in Sri Lanka the south and west coasts have been the sink for large numbers of displaced people as a result of the ongoing conflict in the north and east.3.2 Population trends Coastal populations around the world are on the increase. When her husband was diagnosed as a cancer patient. When her husband was active and alive. 2. for example. offering good income earning opportunities for small-scale fishers. In the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. She thought of committing suicide. In Mozambique. who are attracted to the coast in search of new opportunities. for a month she could not do anything. to the detriment of the future health and sustainability of production (see following Chapter 3). low tech and often poor fishers. However. sugar or soap. Coral reef resources may also buffer the impacts of market trends in other sectors.3.g. loss of fishing nets is a common occurrence amongst fisherfolk. the coral reef offers a haven for the small-scale. its complex three-dimensional structure and coral outcrops.1 Market trends Throughout the world subsistence economies have been shifting towards monetary-based systems and increasing commercialisation. an event which can completely alter the livelihood status of a family. The diversity and productivity of coral reef resources. when the price of cloves fell.3 Trends 2. NORTHERN MOZAMBIQUE ‘Our fertile land is on the other side of the river. however.

cultural and environmental principles. Coral reefs also offer important opportunities for seasonal migrants.3 Tourism development Tourism is frequently promoted as a highly profitable industry. However. 2002a). In the Caribbean alone. the ability of the poorer members of the community to access the benefits of tourism is far from guaranteed and requires a sensitivity of development guided by social. which have attracted growing recognition for their role in sustainable development (Box 27). etc. Section 3. although in this case their stimulus is the degradation of their local resources (Wilson et al. has marginalized local communities and led to conflict between tourism and local small-scale fishers (see Chapter 3. engaging in on-shore boat maintenance and repairs (Hajra. Coral reef areas around the world have experienced a huge increase in tourism development. their resources and the factors that control how they access and use those resources.4. the reef provides a limited number of benefits to regular users linked into resource extraction.. including Andhra Pradesh. Not only do they provide a range of benefits in terms of the resources that reef-dependent people use directly in their livelihoods. and the diversity of those strategies reflects the diversity of type and form of the benefits that flow from the reef ecosystem. These benefit flows help reef-dependent people develop a range of livelihood strategies.5 SUMMARY For the casual observer. longer-term trends. reefs help people cope with.3. the reef can also affect the interaction between reef-dependent people. West Bengal and Tamil Nadu. In Sri Lanka. The development of infrastructure (roads. Tanzanian fishers migrate temporarily south to access reef resources in Northern Mozambique. 2. The development of coral reef tourism has the potential to bring valuable benefits to local communities. 20 million people visit coastal areas. It is now estimated that fisherfolk currently constitute approximately 6% of the total settler population of 356 265. In many coral reef areas. In the last three decades there has been a flood of immigration. Similarly. almost double the number in 1995. 1988). Kerala. and Bangladesh. While there are clearly potential benefits of tourism development to local communities. tourism is one of the main industries bringing employment and income-generating opportunities to coastal areas. However. opportunities for further immigration has now been curtailed through a Supreme Court Order enacted in an effort to ensure the sustainability of development on the islands. As the population grew. and adapt to. where coral reefs attract 60% of the world’s scuba-diving tours (ICRI. with many millions of tourists visiting reef areas annually. Such temporary migrations are often the focus of conflicts between local and outside fishers. In reality the benefit flows are much more complex and affect different groups of people in many different ways. mainly fisheries. particularly as labourers on boats. farmers were settled to provide food. Many immigrants are escaping hardships and are attracted by the possibility of improving their livelihood. enabling them to cope with seasonal lows in availability. The productive coral reef resources provide many opportunities for new migrants. Many of the settlers undertook fishing on the coral reefs for subsistence needs.) associated with the expansion of tourism may also bring benefits to local communities. However. with fisherfolk migrating from various parts of India. 36 . or periodic shocks and stresses. fishers seasonally migrate from west to east coasts and vice versa in association with the changing monsoon seasons and in order to access sheltered resources. In addition. in some cases they may also be important sources of employment for local non-fishing communities. and continue to fish and generate income (Stirrat. the wider changes that affect their lives whether they be regular seasonal changes. but it was not until the 1960s that settlers were brought over by the administration to develop the fishery industry. Some people are able to attracted thousands of migrants from mainland India. with land easily encroached from forest areas and a good potential for fishing.3. Coastal areas and coral reefs are magnets for tourism development and in many cases the industry is promoted as a means to provide alternatives to fishery-based livelihoods and ensure the sustainability of local coral reef resources.BOX 26 REEF RESOURCES AS A SINK FOR MIGRANTS IN THE ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS. 1970). communications. (From: Singh and Andrews. Such an approach is encompassed in small-scale eco-tourism activities. 2003) 2. INDIA Early settlement in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands was associated with the forestry industry. famine or conflicts (Box 26). requiring only hand-lines which are cheap and locally available. often escaping drought. in many cases the absence of proper planning and recognition of local needs and priorities. 2003).3).

BOX 27 EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL CORAL REEF ECO-TOURISM
In the Solomon Islands, the ‘Solomon Island Village Stays’ were developed in order to let the traveller experience the true feeling of the Solomon Islands. There is a network of over 20 village home stays located throughout the Solomon Islands. A family of the village operates each home stay.This gives the local villagers an opportunity to earn cash without selling their land to developers or loggers. The Belize Eco-tourism Association, was created on Earth Day in 1993.As part of its Code of Ethics, it recognises the need to support economic and social sustainability by encouraging small-scale tourist developments, providing employment of local people, purchasing products made locally from sustainable resources and providing guidance to all guests to be environmentally and culturally responsible. In the last few years, the Western SamoaVisitor's Bureau has established a National Eco-tourism Programme. The programme promotes a variety of types of sustainable tourism, which are designed to directly benefit rural villagers, contributing a proportion of tour fees directly to the villagers.
(From:The United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development, Small Island Developing States Unit ‘Eco-tourism Success Stories’ SIDS website http://www.sidsnet.org/eco-tourism/index.html )

develop strategies that make full-time regular use of the reef or its resources, others can use the reef as a crucial safety net in difficult times. Others use the reef as a keystone resource that they tap into at certain times of the year when other resources are not available to them. The diversity of stakeholders, outlined in Chapter 1, Section 1.3, also affects the diversity of reef-related livelihood strategies. Their use of the benefit flows are not just for subsistence, income or food security; the reef provides a much stronger platform for social and cultural development which is not always considered in economic analyses of the reef. In some situations the reef provides the very means to keep many people out of poverty and so it often appears that reefdependent communities are not as badly off as some of their neighbours, whose strategies are mainly land-based. In the Pacific, for instance, many reef-dependent communities seem idyllic but there is a growing level of vulnerability amongst these communities that threatens to undo much of the work that has been achieved through the wider development process. In almost all reef-dependent communities the benefit flows that the reefs provide are under threat and the livelihoods of some of the poorest people are being seriously undermined. In the near future many of those who have been helped above the poverty line will start to slip back below it unless there are radical changes in the way reefs and reef-dependent communities are viewed and worked with. The changes affecting reefs and reef-dependent communities, and their consequences, are discussed in the next Chapter.

37

CHAPTER 3 CHANGING BENEFIT FLOWS AND INCREASING VULNERABILITY

F

3.1 INTRODUCTION or many millions of poor coastal people, coral reefs provide a diversity of benefits on which they may depend throughout the year, during particular seasons or intermittently during their lives. Many poor people rely on these benefits as a keystone resource or critical safety net in times of hardship. In this way, the benefits provided by the reef enable the poor to cope with vulnerabilities, keeping many people out of extreme poverty and providing them with livelihood stability. As described in the previous Chapter, these benefits are accessible to some of the most disadvantaged groups, such as female-headed households and the elderly. However, the ability of coral reefs to continue to provide benefits to the poor is changing. Throughout the world, the capacity of coral reefs to offer a buffer against adversity and provide livelihood stability is being eroded as a result of a wide range of factors that influence the poor’s access to, and use of, reef resources. Consequently, many of the poor dependent on reefs are becoming increasingly vulnerable. 3.2 CAUSES OF CHANGE Livelihood systems are constantly changing and nowhere is this more apparent than the dynamic coastal environment, at the interface between land and sea and at the convergence of a diversity of sectors. Changes to coastal livelihoods are driven by a complex web of interacting factors, acting indirectly or directly, over which the coastal poor have varying degrees of control. These factors influence access to resources and ultimately determine the livelihood strategies adopted and so contribute to the livelihood outcomes of the poor (Figure 24). The changing access to coral reef benefits can be viewed as a product of four major interacting factors, namely: population growth, market and technology changes, reef degradation and reef conservation.

As coastal populations continue to increase, so does the number of dependents on coral reef resources. And as the benefits of coral reefs become distributed among increasing numbers of people, so the competition for access increases, ultimately leading to a decline in the quality, quantity and diversity of benefits for each stakeholder. In addition, the growing number of coastal people means that land-based activities are also becoming threatened. In many areas, agricultural land area per person is declining, land is being degraded through over-use, and the demand for agriculture labour is falling. This reduces opportunities for many coastal people and forces them to depend even more heavily on the coral reefs. Furthermore, improved health and social services in many areas have increased survival rates of coastal people to the point where they are living longer. This has led to larger numbers of vulnerable older people depending on the resources.

3.2.1 Population growth Coastal population growth is the result both of natural growth as well as migration to coastal areas. Globally 2.2 billion people or 39% of the world’s population live within 100 km of the coast. Among coral reef countries, the proportion of people is even greater, with on average 78% of the population living within 100 km of the coast,2 and almost half a billion people living within 100 km of a coral reef (Bryant et al., 1998).

3.2.2 Market and technology changes The shallow and complex physical structure of coral reefs, together with their high biodiversity, has resisted the large-scale commercialisation and industrialisation of production, which has been common in other coastal ecosystems. As a result, coral reef fisheries have remained small-scale and accessible to the poor. However, at the same time with the movement from subsistence to cash economies, growth in transport and globalisation of markets, coral reef fisheries have experienced a shift away from predominantly subsistence-oriented production, towards commercial production increasingly orientated to export markets. In many cases, lucrative external or export markets have created a high demand for certain reef products, leading to an intensification of production, controlled by players and forces outside the local environment. Frequently, this has attracted outsiders to the reef fishery and has also led to the introduction of new technologies to increase production efficiency, such as scuba or the use of cyanide, which have serious impacts on the reef and sustainability of the fishery. In many cases, it has led to reef degradation with over-exploitation of the target product and the local collapse of the fishery (Box 28). 3.2.3 Reef degradation Coral reefs are fragile ecosystems, slow growing and sensitive to changes in the narrow range of temperature, light and acidity in

38

IN D I

RE CT

INFLUENCING FACTO

RS

REEF DEGRADATION

E D IR

C T IN

FLUENCING FACT OR

S

POPULATION GROWTH

GLOBAL WARMING

CHANGING ACCESS TO BENEFITS CONSERVATION
POLICIES

PATRONAGE CHANGING TECHNOLOGIES

RESOURCES
TOURISM GROWTH FISHERIES POLICIES Natural Physical

AGE AND GENDER

Social EXTERNAL MARKETS

THE COASTAL Human POOR
Financial

MARKETS

ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT

DEVELOPMENT POLICIES

COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS

POLITICS

INDUSTRIAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

CHANGING LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES AND OUTCOMES Figure 24 Factors contributing to changing access to reef benefits.

which they exist. Sources of disturbance to coral reef ecosystems are multiple and synergistic and of natural as well as anthropogenic origin. Living in shallow coastal waters, where the externalities of human activities, both nearby on the coast and far away upstream, frequently concentrate, coral reefs are extremely vulnerable to human disturbance, such as: sedimentation (from coastal development or upstream forestry and agriculture); nutrient waste (from coastal populations and agriculture); and chemical and oil pollution (from agriculture, industry and shipping). Coral reefs are also degraded through the direct removal of reefs, e.g. for land reclamation or coastal construction, or the over-exploitation of reef products. As mentioned above, local coral reef fisheries are a major source of reef degradation, resulting in increasing often unsustainable pressures on the resource, both through a growth in the numbers of users and scale of

extraction, as well as the intensification of extraction and the emergence of destructive technologies. As well as human disturbances, natural impacts also take their toll on reef resources. Outbreaks and plagues of reef predators, such as the Crown-of-Thorns starfish, cause widespread reef mortality, while cyclones and hurricanes leave large areas of reef damage in their wake. But of all the natural impacts, global warming is one of the most threatening disturbances on a large scale. Coral reefs and coastal fisheries are highly vulnerable to climate change, with coral reefs at risk of undergoing significant and often irreversible damage (IPCC, 2001). Large-scale episodes of elevated sea surface temperatures are principal factors linked to mass bleaching and coral mortality events throughout the world (Box 29). Research suggests that mass bleaching events are likely to increase in frequency and severity within 20 years (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999). Recent

39

BOX 28

EXTERNALLY DRIVEN CORAL REEF FISHERIES

Sea cucumber trade in Eastern Africa In Eastern Africa the sea cucumber fishery is almost entirely for export to Asian markets and offers a lucrative opportunity for smallscale fishers. Physical and financial resources required to enter the fishery are low, with intertidal areas and shallow waters gleaned on foot at night with the aid of a lantern. However, as the resources in many intertidal areas have become fully exploited, skin diving in deeper waters involving teams of divers operating from boats has become more common. More recently the use of scuba equipment has allowed divers to exploit greater depths and for longer periods. In recent years reports from Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique indicate that the sea cucumber resources particularly in shallow waters have declined due to over-fishing and high demands and prices.
(From:TRAFFIC, 2001)

Live food fish trade in Southeast Asia Keeping fish alive until just before they are cooked has been a popular Chinese custom for centuries.With increasing wealth in Hong Kong, local fisheries could no longer meet the growing demand for live fish and the demand spread to other fisheries. High prices and demand for live food fish generate considerable profit which have encouraged the use of new technologies and have attracted ‘foreign’ private companies and fishers to exploit near-shore reef areas. During the early 1970s fishers in the Philippines began using cyanide to capture live food fish for export to Hong Kong.The use of cyanide is simple, it is relatively inexpensive and easy to obtain, and so cyanide fishing has become a prevalent method, which has spread throughout Southeast Asia and beyond (Figure 25). However, it is also a destructive technology, often killing the fish before they reach the market and causing damage to the surrounding reef and reef species. Furthermore, the species targeted, such as groupers, are slow-growing and long-lived and vulnerable to over-fishing. By the late 1980s the live fish trade was in decline in the Philippines and moved to Indonesia. The introduction of the trade followed similar progressions, led initially by external companies operating from large boats with teams of divers from other parts of Indonesia. For example, in the Kei Islands in the south-east of the Indonesian province of Maluku, the live fish trade appeared in 1991 led by a number of different private companies from outside, in a trade which was hugely profitable Figure 25 Live fish cages, Indonesia. and expanded rapidly. The emergence of the trade brought Source: James Oliver http://www.reefbase.org/ conflicts between the local fishers and communities and the outside operations, due to the damage caused by the cyanide use, but primarily due to the absence of respect for local rights of access to the near-shore fishery resources. After 5 years the profitability of the large operations declined with falling yields and the fishery was replaced by smaller low cost operations with more local involvement. Cyanide use continued and the focus of conflict shifted from local fishers against outsiders to village against village and between different groups within communities.
(From:Thorburn, 2001)

studies predict that probabilities of repeat episodes of mass bleaching in central sites within the Indian Ocean will increase to a 10% chance of recurrence for all months or a 50% chance of recurrence for the warmest months after only 25–35 years (Sheppard, 2002). Low lying coralline islands have already begun to suffer the effects of that sea-level rise. Reports indicate that two islands in Kiribati have already been engulfed by rising seas and the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) warn that many other islands are at risk from

increasing coastal erosion and severe flooding associated with storms and high tides.3 An IPCC report indicates that developing countries are likely to suffer most in terms of loss of life and the negative economic effects of climate change (IPCC, 2001). An analysis of risks facing reefs around the world estimates that 60% of reefs are under threat (Bryant et al., 1998). Out of four categories of risk considered, coastal development; overexploitation and destructive fishing; inland pollution and

40

erosion; and marine pollution, coastal development and overexploitation were considered to pose the greatest potential threat to reefs (Bryant et al., 1998). Coral reefs in Southeast Asia are the most threatened in the world, with 88% of reefs at risk from human activities and 50% of these facing ‘high’ or ‘very high’ levels of threat (Burke et al., 2002). With many reefs already degraded and a large proportion of others threatened, the reef benefits available to coastal communities and the poor are in decline and in many cases lost or changed irreversibly.

Figure 26 Bleached coral (Acropora sp.), Sri Lanka.
Source:Arjan Rajasuriya http://www.reefbase.org/

BOX 29

MASS CORAL BLEACHING AND GLOBAL WARMING IMPACTS ON CORAL REEFS

Since 1979 six major episodes of mass coral bleaching have occurred throughout the world causing entire reef systems to lose all living coral (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999).The most severe episode of coral bleaching occurred in 1998, affecting every geographical coral reef area in the world and causing mortality of an estimated 16% of the world’s reef-building corals (Wilkinson, 2000). Evidence indicates that elevated temperature is the principle cause of mass bleaching events. For those corals that survive bleaching, productivity and growth are reduced and increasing temperature effects will reduce their reproductive capacity (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999). In addition, changes to the chemical properties of oceans predicted to accompany climate change are likely to result in slower growth of corals and a reduced capacity to ‘keep up’ with bio-erosion rates and rising sea-levels (Boesch et al., 2000; Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999). Increasing temperatures are also associated with the emergence of coral diseases, which are likely to become more prevalent with global warming (Rosenberg and Ben-Haim, 2002). Consequently, the impacts of coral bleaching combined with other global warming effects, will result in declines in coral abundance, diversity and health, compromising the ability of coral reefs to respond to other disturbances and with potentially major impacts on the entire reef ecosystem and reef fisheries (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999). Current understanding suggests that corals will be unable to acclimatise or adapt fast enough to keep pace with climate change and they may be the ‘single largest casualty’ of global warming (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999).

3.2.4 Reef conservation International and national recognition of declining reef resources has resulted in increasing efforts to protect and conserve reef biodiversity for the future. These efforts have focused on protecting coral reef areas and species from negative impacts through the prevention or better management of sources of impact. Coral reef fisheries are recognised as having major negative impacts on coral reef biodiversity, health and function. Consequently, many efforts have targeted reef fishery activities, frequently using legislation banning the harvest of particular species, or restricting fisheries activities through systems of marine protected areas, as discussed in the following Chapter, Section 4.3. In this way, coral reef fishers and communities dependent on the reef are commonly perceived as a source of problems and negative impacts, particularly associated with their role in reef fisheries. Thus, efforts of reef conservation, in their well-meaning attempt to reduce this impact can have the effect of keeping fishers away and reducing their access to reef resources. 3.3 IMPACTS OF CHANGE Changing access to reef benefits has had wide ranging impacts on poor reef-dependent communities, varying in extent and form from one place to the next. The impact of this change can viewed within a livelihood’s context as changes to livelihood outcomes and changes to livelihood strategies, as illustrated in Figure 27. The following sections describe some of these changes, which are common to many different circumstances. 3.3.1 Changing livelihood outcomes 3.3.1.1 Declining benefits Increasing numbers of reef dependents and degrading reef resources are commonly resulting in a reduction in reef benefits per capita. With little or no access to alternative resources, poor reef users must expend greater and greater efforts to maintain the flow of benefits from the reef, so pressure on reef resources increases and the availability of benefits decline further. As the resources decline, not only do the quality and quantity of products decline, so does the diversity of products available (Box 30).

41

1.This was attributed to the increasing fishing effort of the expanding coastal population. more and more of these are commercially produced and require to be purchased rather than be harvested from the wild. 2003) 3. which have promoted over-exploitation (the use of nets with small mesh sizes) and caused damage to the resource base (dynamite fishing). this has lead to further pressure on the existing resources and while the financial impact of declining catch has been buffered to an extent by the growth of high value markets. Similarly. such as reef molluscs.3. 42 . This puts the poor consumers in an increasingly difficult position (Box 31). INDIA The general consensus amongst local fisherfolk in the three study villages was that fish catches had declined over the last two decades.2 Exclusion Changing resource access will often have opposing impacts on different reef stakeholders. Where these restrictions target shallow reef resources. For some. particularly female members. combined with fishing practices. As resources have become more scarce the effort expended on fishing activities has increased. this has particularly affected women reef gleaners. has often resulted in the shift of benefits away from local reef-dependent communities to wider society benefits of maintaining biodiversity. Typically. who often rely heavily on this resource as one of the few accessible sources of food and income. In other cases. The emergence of lucrative foreign markets. the human impact has been the loss of household food security. so food security is becoming threatened in many communities. Ultimately. and in this way they increase vulnerability amongst the poor. The diversity of reef products is an important factor in the ability of the reef to provide livelihood stability (as outlined in Chapter 2).With near-shore resources forming the basis of most people’s livelihoods. with comparatively minimal returns to local producers. as described above (Section 2. both in terms of the size of fish and their variety. the benefits of reef harvests are increasingly maximised in external market systems. Thus. the growth in well-meaning reef conservation efforts restricting local exploitation of reef resources. brought by both the diversity of reef products available and the productivity of the reef. has led to the emergence of foreign traders displacing local mediators and often weakening local market systems. BOX 30 DECLINING REEF BENEFITS IN THE GULF OF MANNAR.. Whilst alternative protein sources are often available. while for others the change may exclude them from benefits and access to new opportunities. As reef resources become depleted. reef conservation has displaced the benefits from local reef users to foreign tourists.1).4. restrictions on trade of globally endangered reef species have often legally excluded many reef stakeholders from sources of livelihood. with local fishers denied access to marine protected areas (Box 32). many of the changes in reef access have led to a shift in benefits away from local communities adjacent to the reef resource and from the most vulnerable. (From: Rengasamy et al. Consequently. they also reduce livelihood stability. to outside and more powerful interests. their decline has had a considerable impact. not only do declining benefits reduce food and income security of the poor. demanding greater involvement of the household.F IT S CHANGING LIVELIHOOD OUTCOMES • Declining benefits • Insecurity • Vulnerability • Exclusion • Conflict • Criminalisation • Unsustainable livelihoods • Increased poverty Cope GIN CH AN NE SS TO REEF ACCE BE Increase exploitation rates Employ destructive practices Diversify GL IVE LIH OO D STR A TEG G GIN Seek alternatives IE S A CH N Migrate Figure 27 Impacts of changing access to reef benefits on livelihood outcomes and strategies. In this way.3. the change may be positive leading to new or improved opportunities.

the impact of a drought in 1987–1991 meant that the normal diversity of animal protein available (goats. access and exploitation of shallow reef and seagrass areas surrounding the 21 coralline islands in the Gulf is prohibited and the Wildlife Protection Act (1972) prohibits the collection of many reef species. we only buy wood and drinking water and rice. although legally locals cannot be excluded from using beach and tidal flats outside hotels. 2003) Wakatobi National Park. Conventional approaches to management of the park (through rules and regulations) has not involved or considered the livelihoods of the local community. Furthermore. In the Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve (GOMMBR). which was thought to spoil the area for tourists (Wallevik and Jiddawi. we get everything from the sea. they generally lack the required skills to enter the tourist industry. and fishers were pressurised to provide fish to farming relatives. In the village of Buen Hombre in the Dominican Republic. the extraction of certain rare target species for the live fish trade and favourite food species. 2001) BOX 32 THE EXCLUSION OF LOCAL REEF FISHERS FROM MARINE PROTECTED AREAS Marine protected areas in India focus on biodiversity. for example. while at the same time needed to sell some fishing to order to have cash to purchase water needed to make their own family dinner. Box 28). poor reef stakeholders are reported to continue to access prohibited reef resources at great risk and increasing transaction costs. high-class tourism developments on the southeast coast have resulted in the displacement of women from accessing nearshore areas for seaweed cultivation and reef gleaning. conflicts between local fishers and those responsible for marine 43 . Where changes have brought about the displacement of reef benefits to outside interests or stakeholders. as they are often not involved or considered in decision-making processes that brought about the change. Consequences of increasing drought will impact many different groups of coastal people. local fishing communities and ‘foreign’ cyanide fishing operations. Discontent among the local Mola community was widespread and comments from fishers such as the following are reported to be common:‘This park makes our life difficult. they lack the necessary resources to access alternative opportunities that may accompany such changes.g. 3. local reef stakeholders have been displaced from accessing resources in tourist areas.. these restrictions place severe and impossible restraints on their livelihoods. who are marginal wage earners. these ‘outsiders’ frequently become the focus of conflicts and disputes (e. Farmers became dependent on fish protein for their families. For the Mola community.. Restrictions imposed by park officials are disapproved of by locals as they interfere with their livelihoods. on the Zanzibar island of Unguje. all our daily needs. 1999). For the majority of poor reef stakeholders living along the coast of the Gulf of Mannar. 2001) Elsewhere. (From: Stoffle.3. conservation and tourism values placing the coral reefs within them ‘off limits’ for local fishery activities. The poor are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of shifting benefits. Fish was practically the only accessible source of animal protein. dogs and chickens) was lacking.1. For example. as well as a loss of ownership and disenfranchisement from control of local resources. Thus the outcome of shifting reef benefits is frequently a loss of food and income-generating opportunities for local reefdependent communities and the poor. and many continue to carry out activities illegally. but in particular food producers (farmers and fishers) and the urban poor. purely for aesthetic reasons.3 Increasing conflict With increasing numbers of reef dependents competing for declining reef resources it is not surprising that there is also increasing conflict amongst reef stakeholders. so when the sea is restricted we cannot live’.BOX 31 DECLINING FOOD SECURITY IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC During dry periods and droughts people along the coast develop an increased dependency on fish. In the same way. e.g.All coral that provides for us is already closed and we are restricted from fishing there. in Eastern Indonesia was designated as a park in an effort to protect coral reefs with high biodiversity and to halt the use of destructive fishing techniques. (From: Rengasamy et al.With no viable alternatives. (From: Elliot et al.

often relying on destructive fishing practices. which have excluded fishers in initial stages or throughout implementation. Source:Thomas Heeger http://www.These negative perceptions were reinforced further by political influences. patterns of resource use often become Figure 28 Dynamite fishing. 3. the longer-term consequences of declining resource productivity are discounted against the economic gains in the short term. (From: Rubens. As reef benefits decline and competition and conflicts increase many of the reef stakeholders excluded and disadvantaged by the changes become increasingly disenchanted with their livelihood system. for others choosing lucrative short-term gains over longer-term sustainability is often seen as a means to escape the inevitability of future resource declines. 1998). While many poor reef stakeholders may have no choice but to continue illegal and often unsustainable resource exploitation. that the success of the reserve in eliminating destructive techniques.3. poor stakeholders typically lack the choice to alter their livelihoods in favour of conservation. The Kenyan Wildlife Service is responsible for the development and management of the reserve in which traditional non-destructive fishing activities are permitted.). the risk of punishment for breaking the law in many cases is not a sufficient disincentive to stop exploiting a prohibited reef area or reef species.org/ 44 . there is no option but to continue accessing reef benefits illegally. 2000). This is frequently perpetuated through systems of political or social patronage. Beach traders opposed the reserve. Expanding coastal and reef tourism may also bring conflicts beyond those over access to reef benefits. 2000. Furthermore.The original motivation for establishing the reserve came in 1990 from expatriate residents and hotel owners primarily concerned with protecting beach areas from increasing security problems. from evidence elsewhere in Kenya. In Sri Lanka a local dynamite fisher justified his choice of short-term profits as a means to provide better education to his children and therefore an opportunity for them to escape the declining fishery (Robert Cordover.4 Illegal livelihoods For many poor reef stakeholders faced with restrictions over reef access resulting from reef conservation efforts. unsustainable.BOX 33 CONFLICTS IN KENYA OVER THE DIANI MARINE RESERVE In Kenya. With no other viable alternative to turn to. for example. was not guaranteed. declines in fish catches and increasing conflicts with immigrant fishers. are commonly encountered (Box 33). comm.1. Their distrust and opposition to the reserve and the Kenyan Wildlife Service was amplified by the realisation. 2002.5 Unsustainable livelihoods Where external markets drive high demands and lucrative prices for reef products.. which would totally exclude their activities. 1999). Lack of resources for enforcement and corruption in enforcement systems often reinforces this situation (Johannes. would be resurrected and potentially include the entire coast. The corruption in enforcement systems is also a widespread source of increased transaction costs for the poor. in particular when local cultural sensitivities are not respected. such as beach seining. which threatened to close their access to tourists on the beach and so severely restrict their livelihoods. even in cases where the destructive extraction techniques are illegal (Figure 28). This has led to intergenerational conflicts and in some cases the total abandonment of traditional spirit appeasing ceremonies (Glaesel. but also concerned over the poor condition of Diani’s reefs.reefbase. have challenged young fishers’ faith in the ability of their elders to interact with the spirit world to ensure the health of and control access to community waters (Glaesel. 3. In Kenya. Fishers distrusted the motives of the reserve and feared that early proposals for a marine park. Philippines. the Diani Marine Reserve south of Mombasa was gazetted in 1995.1. McClanahan et al.3. tourism and protected areas. 1996) protected areas. and so preventing further resource decline. In such situations. pers. Controversy and conflict have surrounded the history of the Diani Marine Reserve from its conception to its establishment.

In many cases this situation has been worsened by external market forces and conservation efforts. Seaweed cultivation is commonly undertaken by women and offers a relatively constant source of income. Specialisation in this way on a single production system subject to external influences beyond local control has increased the vulnerability of local livelihoods and threatens their sustainability (Wilson et al. will erode. Source: James Wilson. For example. Wallevik and Jiddawi. 1999). encouraging many women to concentrate on this activity and consequently spend less time farming. providing livelihood stability and reducing vulnerability. often changes are taking place so quickly that the poor are unable to adapt (Box 34). poor reef-dependent communities adopt a variety of different livelihood strategies.. either close to home or at a distant location that require them to migrate. which may in turn result in people seeking entirely new alternatives. which in turn will impact the choice of livelihood strategy in a series of change and response (Figure 27). which are often combined with reefrelated activities in poor households are also threatened. Kusi Lda. external market forces encourage poor stakeholders to specialise in high value products so reducing livelihood diversity and increasing risk to livelihood sustainability in the longer term. because such crops are near their maximum temperature tolerance (IPCC. Agricultural activities. 3. where strategies have been modified. The changes in livelihood strategies. or support systems. the poorer members of a community are often those with little choice or access to alternatives and whose support systems are weak. ranging from persisting with existing strategies and simply coping. In other cases. So the poor are often slow to adapt to change and can easily be marginalized by change. Global warming predictions suggest that yields of some crops in tropical locations will decrease even with minimal increases in temperature. where poor reef stakeholders have suffered a loss of livelihood security and increasing risks and conflicts. which have resulted in the exclusion of poor reef stakeholders.5 VULNERABILITY TO FUTURE CHANGE Given the projections of continued global population growth. pressures on coral reef ecosystems will inevitably continue to increase. will be the quickest to adapt and may often profit from change. Export markets for seaweed have led to large-scale seaweed cultivation in shallow intertidal waters sheltered by coral reefs in many parts of Eastern Africa (Figure 29). or the way people use their resources. 2001). such as family networks or public service support. 45 . DFID-funded research in the postharvest fisheries sector has revealed that while many changes have brought improvements to people’s lives. such as through increased exploitation or destructive exploitation. This trend is thus likely to further exacerbate future vulnerability to change (Box 35). to the modification of existing strategies or the adoption of altogether new strategies. is likely to affect different people in different ways. continued urbanisation and industrialisation and the escalating impacts of global warming. As coral reef resources decline their capacity to support the coastal poor. However. 3.Figure 29 Seaweed farming in Northern Mozambique. Those people with access to alternative resources. which have commonly resulted in unsustainable and often illegal livelihoods. 2003.4 CHANGING LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES In response to changing access to reef benefits and consequent changes in livelihood outcomes. In each case the strategy adopted will impact the ultimate livelihood outcome. this will have a negative feedback on the long-term sustainability of livelihood outcomes. This has clearly already been the case in many parts of the world.

transport. those benefit flows are changing as a result of factors that are impacting upon the reef. replacing older patterns of exchange and patronage between different levels of the marketing chain. Increasing pressure on declining fisheries resources means that fish catches are increasingly landed at urban ports and sold to larger-scale fish buyers. who previously played an important role in fish marketing. The expansion of the transportation network has made the movement of fish far quicker and easier. Cash and access to capital plays an increasingly important role in market relationships. Domestic and international demand for fish is increasing steadily. In some cases this may have made the system more open and “competitive”. as well as the actors themselves. often among the poorer sections of coastal communities. often excluding the small-scale traders. driving the overall value of fish upwards and making it more and more inaccessible for poor consumers. especially to the poor. a factor that particularly affects the ability of poorer groups to participate. Increasingly. Often it is the poorest who are least able to quickly adapt to these changes. salted and smoked fish that supported a significant number of small-scale fish processors. process and sell fish on the land. The research has revealed that poor people involved in the utilisation of fish are caught up in a complex set of interacting changes. Some of these 46 . iced fish. The poor typically lack the resources and support to change. processors and middlemen who used to handle catches at rural landing sites. it is inevitably difficult for the poorer and more vulnerable groups to find alternatives. with varying degrees of success. seem to be increasingly marginalized. Just as the coral reefs have frequently been referred to by scientists and politicians as the ‘miner’s canary’ of global warming. inevitably. they may conflict with cultural or social norms and they are often unsustainable in the longer term. alternative options to diversify or change their livelihoods in response to these changes are inaccessible. Many of the changes that have affected patterns of fish utilisation in India are not necessarily negative and have created significant improvements in the ways in which fish is used and patterns of wastage. changes in the patterns of demand have also influenced the ways in which benefits flow from fisheries. such as fish processing or the artisanal manufacture of containers for transporting fish have declined or disappeared. As a result of these changes. The increasing population in coastal areas has meant that competition for all livelihood opportunities has increased and. has reduced dramatically. making significant demands on the innovativeness and capacity for adaptation among the people involved. The demand for dried. Women. the poor have often found themselves unable to take advantage of these changes and opportunities. For many of the poor. opening up new market opportunities but also changing the relationships between different actors in the market. future declines in agriculture. forcing groups involved to shift into new occupations. These changes have also created new opportunities in the processing of fish for export and fresh fish handling but. and even international. so they may also be referred to as a ‘miner’s canary’ of increasing vulnerability of the livelihoods of the poor.BOX 34 CHANGES IN FISH UTILISATION AND IMPACTS ON THE POOR IN INDIA Changing Fish Utilisation and its Impact on Poverty in India – DFID’s Post-Harvest Fisheries Research Programme – has looked at the ways in which fish utilisation in India has changed over time and the impacts that these changes have had on the livelihoods of the poor.6 SUMMARY Whilst the reef provides a wide range of benefits to many people. Once fish moves from fish landings into the trading network. changes have often been even more dramatic. while the market is more and more dominated by large. but this has also meant greater risk. wherever one option disappears.and medium-scale operators. But these changes are occurring with increasing rapidity. Once fish is landed. markets which require higher-quality. Changes in fisheries resources and the ways in which they are exploited have led to shifts in the types and quantities of fish available and different relationships between those involved in fish catch and those who buy. the equilibria within coastal communities have also shifted. Existing opportunities are frequently too risky. 3. fish catches are destined for urban. So with the erosion of reef benefits. and few viable alternatives or support. the future for the many millions of poor people dependent on coral reefs is severely threatened. Many traditional skills and trades associated with fish utilisation.

Reefs are identified as natural systems that are sensitive to.Thus. As mentioned in previous sections.BOX 35 CLIMATE CHANGE AND COASTAL LIVELIHOODS The working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified a series of probable impacts and vulnerabilities of climate change in relation to coral reefs. compounded by declining water availability and a widespread risk of flooding (from both changing precipitation and sea-level rise).These will lead to greater dependence on reef resources in the short term. Coastal areas more generally are expected to become progressively inundated and many small islands are predicted to become submerged. increasing conflict. Linked to the direct effects of climate change are the likely changes in coastal agricultural activities adjacent to reefs. The ability of human systems to adapt to these changes is highly variable and those with the least resources have the least capacity to adapt and are the most vulnerable. Some of these changes are occurring at the moment. criminalisation of the poor. (From: IPCC. The impact of these changes varies between different stakeholder groups. Many more are caused by changes outside the control of reefdependent communities. to greater exclusion of the poor. 47 . These coastal areas will also be subjected to increased cyclonic weather patterns and increased variability and unpredictability of general weather patterns. 2001) impacts are caused by the very people who depend upon the reef. It is projected that these will exhibit a general reduction in crop yields. and under threat from. The changes are likely to result in the decline of a wide array of benefit flows. others are predicted to occur in the future as a result of climate change and other trends. declining food security and more unstable livelihoods. many groups of people who are currently above the poverty line are likely to fall below it as a result of these changes. climate change. impacts are expected to fall disproportionately on the poor. but in general the poor are finding that their livelihoods are being stressed more than most and they are the least able to respond.

2 RESPONDING TO CHANGING LIVELIHOODS Livelihood security of the poor and vulnerable dependent on reefs can be split into three component parts: (1) the diversity of alternative livelihood opportunities the poor have access to. The following sections describe a range of different interventions commonly encountered in attempts to prevent reef decline and discusses their relative success and failure in dealing with poverty-related reef issues. interventions to address poverty and reef-related issues need to consider each of these three components of livelihood security in order to make a meaningful and sustainable impact. support systems or safety nets Few inaccessible alternatives Weak support systems or safety nets are weak and the reef benefits on which they depend are eroding. national and local institutions and organisations have tried a variety of strategies to deal with the problems. The poor are frequently faced with a situation where there are few alternative livelihood opportunities available to them. international. However. involving stakeholder participation at all levels and at all stages. Each of these three components exist as a continuum as shown in Figure 30. The effectiveness (in terms of poverty reduction) of the intervention approaches discussed below need to be viewed in terms of the changing circumstances of the poor. generating alternative livelihoods. often to the neglect of local development. 48 h a n c i n g li v e . protected areas.1 INTRODUCTION n response to changes in reef benefits. Moffat et al.1 Reefs incorporated into Integrated Coastal Zone Management systems Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) has been widely applied in coral reef areas in an attempt to try to manage development and solve the complexity of issues in coastal areas in a more cross-sectoral and holistic way. such as government welfare or health. As a theoretical concept it aims to integrate environmental. 4.3 PREVENTING REEF DECLINE Considerable effort has focused on preventing reef decline and conserving reef resources. 1998). Given the close linkages between poverty and environmental degradation. As the livelihoods of poor reef stakeholders become increasingly vulnerable. and (3) the health of the reef system that the poor are dependent upon. in the inevitable prioritisation of the vast range of issues to be addressed in the coastal zone. 4. cultural and economic concerns through an iterative process of planning.3. (1998) suggest that a large majority of ICZM efforts remain focused on biodiversity conservation. 4. The aim of many of the interventions has been primarily towards the sustainability of the reef with less emphasis on the livelihoods of reef-dependent communities and this should be borne in mind when reading this Chapter. social.. as well as its ability to achieve its explicit objective of conservation. participatory approaches that involve communities. the approaches have been implemented by agencies that start from a biophysical perspective and mainly operate with biophysical skills. It was also noted that many ICZM efforts in Eastern Africa were implemented by external donors or NGOs through short-term projects. These include: integrated processes that unite sector agencies. this imbalance compromises both the ability of ICZM to contribute to improving the lives of poor stakeholders. which provide a safety net in times of hardship or crisis. when the management interventions themselves required long-term inputs to achieve and sustain change and to respond to the dynamic nature of lives on the coast (Moffat et al. In the main. certain concerns take precedence. and a diversity of tools for better understanding reefs and informing policies. The following sections examine current reef-related interventions and discusses how successfully they have addressed the causes of increasing vulnerability and enhanced the livelihood security of poor reef stakeholders. action and evaluation. Poor s ta k eh o ld d s e c u r it y li h oo Healthy reef resources Degraded reef resources e rs En Strong support systems or safety nets Diversity of accessible alternatives Figure 30 Components of livelihood security for poor reef stakeholders. (2) the strength of livelihood support systems.CHAPTER 4 INTERVENTIONS I 4. In a review of coastal projects in Eastern Africa.

human resources. or as distinct strategies of their own. which may constrain the ability 4. local community organisations may be weak or non-existent and will require strengthening over time to fully engage in a meaningful way. new directions for coastal management are required. In a review of a selection of community-based coral reef management interventions from around the world. mostly below the poverty line and in recognition of their presence CCAM proposes the area be considered as a ‘Socio Biosphere Reserve’. White (1994) notes that despite the overall success of greater involvement of communities in management such interventions must recognise: • No model exists for collaborative or co-management and the nature and balance of roles. Collaborative approaches to reef management are discussed more below. This involves. • Identifying mechanisms for sustainable financing. For example. • Involving the tourism and dive industries.This has been a fully participatory process and resulted in both the fishers and government perceiving ownership over the regulations. 1999. NGO and private institutions (Box 36). (From: Espeut. Close supervision has only encountered one abuse of authority or false arrest since 1996. from recreational fishing clubs and from government departments. marginalizing local users and failing to respond to their needs. including: government.2 Collaborative or cooperative management approaches to reefs Collaborative and cooperative management approaches to coral reef management. In addition. and private sector representatives. responsibilities and stakeholders involved will depend on local circumstances.About 20 000 people are living in the area. involving them in decision-making and management and addressing their needs and aspirations in collaboration with local government. and CCAM.3. She also points out that coral reef management is becoming seen much more ‘as a way of life’ rather than a series of short-term projects. representatives from the fishers co-ops. 50 fisherfolk have been appointed as ‘honorary game wardens’ or ‘fisheries inspectors’ and provided with training. • Ensuring appropriate livelihoods for those immediately dependent on reefs for their income. which can ensure a higher possibility of success in developing countries where any single institution is unlikely to have the capacity to support long-term management interventions. the Portland Bight Fisheries Management Council (PBFMC). expertise and funding are spread across a range of groups. resource user. much greater levels of participation than has been used in the past. amongst other things. Through this collaboration. • Promoting training and capacity building. • Developing integrated coastal management frameworks for coral reef management. For some collaborators their roles and responsibilities may well be different from established behaviours and will require support to accommodate change. have emerged from the recognition that an absence of community involvement in. In reviewing progress on the management of coral reefs in Eastern Africa.This is the first conservation effort in Jamaica led by a social scientist and the approach is focused on participation through co-management. • Establishing long-term monitoring programmes. Wells (2000) notes that the priority ingredients for success are: • Involving local communities in decision-making and management. CCAM’s objective is sustainable development and the intention is to manage through a series of stakeholder councils. 2002) 49 . interventions has played a significant part in the failure of many coral BOX 36 COMMUNITY-BASED MANAGEMENT IN PORTLAND BIGHT. and ownership of. was launched in 1995 and was comprised of local artisanal fishers. • The wider socio-economic and political context is the source of important influencing forces. giving them powers of search and arrest.White and Deguit (2000) suggest that after many years of working with ICZM approaches in the Philippines. as part of wider ICZM initiatives. The first stakeholder management council. Many existing approaches have tended to ignore local knowledge and capacity. Collaborative or comanagement places the local reef stakeholders at the centre of any intervention.Their first task has been the development of fisheries regulations. JAMAICA The management of the Portland Bight area on Jamaica’s south coast has been delegated to the Caribbean Coastal Area Management (CCAM) Foundation. reef management efforts. Clearly defining these roles in an equitable way is an essential part of the process.

of the community to respond to problems. Apo Marine Reserve. in particular in enhancing fish stocks. only a decade ago it was noted that only a small percentage of the world’s MPAs were effectively managed (White. . 2001).The community have been actively involved in the reserve since its inception and remain involved in its implementation. MPAs. the concept of a protected area that can be managed in effective isolation from activities in surrounding areas is not ecologically tenable’. • The role of donor agencies needs to accommodate a flexible and process-orientated approach. following a change in local administration in 1980 the reserve lost local support by both politicians and the community. Philippines. • Reduce the impact of tourism and other direct human activities. or sanctuaries are increasingly being used as tools in ICZM and collaborative or cooperative management initiatives. known variously as marine parks. and feeding habitats such as estuaries. There are over 1600 MPAs scattered throughout the world’s oceans4. . who perceived the reserve as an externally driven initiative. Kenchington (2000) notes that ‘. (From:Talbot and Wilkinson. For example. nursery. controls over resource access and use commonly encountered in traditional management systems can be used as effective fisheries management tools and are much the same as many contemporary fisheries controls. 4. There is evidence that MPAs can be used effectively to meet these objectives. This support is still lacking and has resulted in management failure and over fishing in the reserve. Depending on local circumstances.3 Marine protected areas One focused instrument often used in ICZM is the Marine Protected Area (MPA). to protect 25% of the reef and increase local fish yields on the instigation of biologists at Silliman University and the local municipal council. However. controlling the impact of external market forces or resource users from outside the community. of which 660 incorporate coral reefs (Spalding et al. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature. seagrass beds. which need to be fully understood to maximise effectiveness.5 the purpose of MPAs is to: • Help protect vulnerable habitats and threatened species. 1994). The success of Apo Marine Reserve is largely attributed to the involvement of the local community at all stages. will require strong community organisation and co-ordination with external stakeholders. was established in 1985 following education and conservation activities in the area since 1979. However. for protect- BOX 37 THE SUCCESS OF MPAS IN SUSTAINING REEF BENEFITS FOR THE POOR Sumilon Marine Reserve was set up in 1974 on Sumilon Island. early 1980s local fishers indeed perceived that fish yields had increased. Likewise. values and opportunities of local stakeholders and the considerable time and commitment required to support innovative and small-scale community-orientated initiatives and to ensure sustainability. 2001) 50 . including a number of the above may be employed. By the late 1970s. In some cases MPAs may be established principally as a tool for biodiversity protection. • Provide local communities with alternative livelihoods. However. which worked with locals to identify their needs and management problems. For example. • Protect breeding populations which can help restock and restore overexploited areas. and coral reefs. such as well-managed tourism.3. • Existing traditional management systems offer opportunities and constraints to collaborative or co-management. ing and restoring marine biodiversity. recognising the diversity of needs. • Increase fishery productivity by protecting critical breeding. mangroves. Philippines. fisheries management or tourism and in other cases multiple use strategies. the success of MPAs in terms of sustaining reef benefits to poor stakeholders depends largely on the extent to which locals have participated in negotiating the objectives of the area and in subsequent management and monitoring (Box 37). reserves. covering 1% of the marine environment. it may also be benefited by legitimising local ownership over resources. ensuring sustainable fisheries management and in association with tourism developments.. Small tourist facilities have been set up bringing benefits to the local economy and a community education centre has been built from visitor fees and donations. the rationale and values behind the use of such controls in their traditional context may be quite different and even at odds with contemporary goals and so must be fully understood within their context to affect the desired outcome. MPAs vary greatly in the extent to which they meet these multiple objectives.

which is likely to contribute to the longer term success of the programmes. 2001 BOX 38 LOCAL PARTICIPATION IN FISHERIES MONITORING IN EAST AFRICA At several locations in Kenya and Tanzania. However. the perceived benefits derived by each side. the quality of those interactions. and participatory approaches to reef management are becoming increasingly important. participation can take many forms from a very extractive process to one of mutual collaboration. Standard methods for monitoring have been adapted to suit local fishers. groups. including the use of local taxonomic names and local measures of size. or ‘self-help’.At the two sites in Kenya (Diani and Kiunga) the process has been a stimulus for fishers to organise into community. Multiple training activities over a prolonged period and involving a reciprocal learning process between fishers and scientists has been necessary to develop skills and understanding. which are variously involved in discussions with government authorities. has encouraged the sharing of information and ideas. from data collection to analysis and dissemination. local fishers are participating in fisheries-monitoring programmes together with local government institutions. It has also required external funds to compensate for local fishers’ time. The degree of participation applied in any intervention depends on local circumstances and the objectives of the intervention. scientists. and are functioning much like the fishing co-operatives.. (From: Obura et al. government officers and NGOs at all stages. Collaboration between local communities. The process has taken considerable time to build acceptance and to develop reliable monitoring systems. into a community-led collaboration as capacity within the community develops (Box 38). which had previously collapsed due to political and financial problems. Campbell and Salagrama (2001) highlight varying degrees of involvement of both the community and outside professionals (Table 11). However. the stage at which interactions occur. While empowerment was not the initial motivation of the participatory fisheries monitoring activities it is considered an important outcome. and overcome the constraints of low literacy and difficulties in correlating local and scientific taxa. Evidence suggests that participation early on in the process and significantly TABLE 11 Type:A Type: B Type: C Type: D Type: E Type: F Type: G Type: H Type: I DIFFERENT DEGREES OF PARTICIPATION Professional exclusive Professional-led Contract Professional-led Consultative Professional-led Collaborative Collegial Community-led Collaborative Community-led Consultative Community-led Contract Community exclusive Only involvement of professional participants Professionals ‘buy-in’ the skills and equipment of the coastal people Professionals utilise the indigenous knowledge of the coastal people for their own purposes Professionals allow the involvement of coastal people in the activities under conditions prescribed by the professional Professional and community members work equally together to generate knowledge and develop interventions on an issue of mutual importance Coastal communities allow the involvement of outsiders in the activities under conditions prescribed by the community Coastal communities utilise the knowledge base of the professional researchers for their own purposes Coastal communities ‘buy-in’ professional support from outside to address their needs Only involvement of community members Adapted from Campbell and Salagrama.4. scientists and NGOs. 2002) 51 .3. potentially constraining its long-term sustainability. this has been rewarded by increased levels of awareness and understanding of the need for and impact of management interventions and improved management and community empowerment. participation will evolve from initially being professional-led. In some cases. and the level of empowerment developed within the community as a result. which vary according to: the balance of control between the community and outsiders.4 Participatory approaches to reef management A key element of any co-management process is participation.

highlighted the significance of patronage relations in influencing the outcomes of any intervention and stressed the need to understand and develop mechanisms to convert potentially negative impacts of patronage into a positive and dynamic force (Foell et al. such as the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) and Reef Check. Despite the many advantages of participation it is not a panacea to ensuring interventions succeed in preventing reef decline and assuring sustainable reef benefits for poor stakeholders. The success of participation will depend on when participation takes place in the process and how it is sustained. as outlined in the following sections. coordination and communication and to incorporate these into policy-implementation measures. 4. has taken a people-centred approach to the coastal ecosystem. It will depend on the equitability of the participation process and how well the poorer and often hidden members of the community are included. planning and policy implementation that involves the full participation of the coastal poor. It may take the form of monitoring and evaluating project impacts or change. in order to promote support for interventions to address these changes. in order to assist better management. 4. migration and displacement in the livelihoods of the poor and catering for this. providing critical information to understand the associated impacts and effectiveness of an 52 . Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. • The need for policy-informing research to fully engage with the poor and to develop much more collaborative approaches to the research process. • Reorganising and building capacity in extension services to specifically target the poor. • Recognising the specific importance that common pool resources have for the poor and accommodating that into policies and plans.in negotiating the objectives of any intervention is critical to ensure its longer-term success. • Using information effectively and systematically in informing and influencing the multitude of different stakeholders involved in coastal development to achieve appropriate behaviour change in line with agreed objectives. policy research project Sustainable Coastal Livelihoods (SCL).6 Information exchange The communication and exchange of different forms of information between a wide range of different stakeholders is a major component of any intervention. and also as part of local level coral reef interventions. It explores the relationship between policy and poverty in the coast.1 Monitoring and evaluation Coral reef-related monitoring programmes have been developed as part of wider international initiatives. At global levels the focus of monitoring programmes has been on collecting information to better understand regional and global trends and to raise awareness of these changes amongst policy-makers within governments and donor agencies. identifies key problem areas and provides guidance on improved approaches. co-management and MPAs now incorporate participation they tend to do so to better achieve the functional aim of improved resource management. A DFID-funded study of participation in ICZM in the Puttalam district of Sri Lanka. The SCL project uses the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) as a means of understanding and addressing the complexity of coastal livelihoods and many of the lessons learnt from that project have informed and influenced the approach adopted during the fieldwork of the current Reef Livelihoods Assessment project.3. • Recognising the specific needs of the poor in disaster situations and to cater for those needs. there are a variety of much more specific policy instruments.. At local levels monitoring and evaluating is an integral part of any management process. In addition to the broader approaches to coasts and reefs discussed above. or it may focus on awareness raising. It is also important that participation is maintained throughout the process to ensure sustainability in the longer term. 1999).6. • Approaching the issue of alternative livelihoods in systematic ways that build on a detailed understanding of the livelihoods of the poor and how those livelihoods fit into wider development processes. to disseminate and exchange information amongst stakeholders. based in India. The SCL project identified the following key points for improved policy formulation and implementation in support of the coastal poor: • Adopting a vertically and horizontally integrated approach to policy formulation. • Recognising the diversity and the value of community-based systems for control.5 Sustainable coastal livelihoods Whilst many efforts in ICZM. 4. • Recognising and responding to the inability of the poor to take up most development opportunities that are provided before they are taken up by more advantaged members of society. It will also depend on the extent to which local systems of patronage are accommodated in the process.3. • Recognising the importance of mobility.3. The DFIDfunded.

social. CORDIO East Africa email: dobura@africaonline. However. an initiative is underway in East Africa to build a partnership programme for socio-economic assessments and monitoring. 4.co. This has resulted in greater local ownership of the GCRMN process in the South Asia region. Although still at its early development stages. the CARE Misali Island Conservation Project in Pemba. though this is likely to be broadened in the future.3.6 In order to fully understand change and the impacts of management interventions. The aim is to develop a monitoring process and associated information management system at the project/local level and regional level by providing services such as training. monitoring and evaluation is often focused towards understanding the status of the coral reef resource and the impact of natural changes and human activities on the reef. and comparability across the region. including the CORDIO Participatory Fisheries Monitoring Programme in Diani. the programme represents a concerted and focused effort to address the lacuna of socio-economic monitoring information on the impact and effectiveness of management for local people and resource users. However. has been the focus of considerable debate and resulted in the production of a manual specifically targeting socio-economic assessments for coral reef management (Bunce et al. Kenya). Attention to the impacts of interventions on the livelihoods and well-being of local poor stakeholders has so far been less pronounced. suitability to comprehension and use by resource users. Kenya (which is in the first field testing phase).6. While these efforts may be successful BOX 39 EAST AFRICA SOCIO-ECONOMIC MONITORING Supported by the CORDIO programme. reviews and identification of suitable indicators. or in partnership with them. socio-economic monitoring and the identification of suitable indicators to measure change. Indicators for monitoring have been developed together with partner projects according to the project’s needs. The initial focus for the socio-economic monitoring programme is coral reefs and mainland East Africa (Mozambique.intervention and to allow the process to adapt and grow. In the GCRMN South Asia node.ke) 53 . and the Participatory Fisheries Monitoring Programme in Kiunga. Currently there are several projects involved in the programme. (For more information on this programme contact David Obura. in line with the predisposition of many programmes towards coral reef conservation. act locally’ approach to their work.Tanzania. cultural. following consultation with a variety of projects. Information which will be critical to ensure the longer-term success and sustainability of coral reef management interventions. In East Africa a programme is currently underway to develop socio-economic monitoring in partnership with ongoing coral reef management projects (Box 39). awareness raising is often focused on informing stakeholders of the negative impact of their actions on the health of the reef. three areas were identified as appropriate for potential indicators: (1) Resource use patterns (2) Attitudes and perceptions (to management regimes or other users) (3) Well-being (economic status/food security). In the same way as monitoring has concentrated on the objectives of coral reef conservation. economic and political factors relating to both coral reefs and coral reef stakeholders. practicability. where local partners have adopted an ‘Inform globally. It is also often used as a means of informing locals of the objectives of an intervention in order to gain their support. Tanzania. linkages between the global and local levels of monitoring have been strengthened. Indeed.. 2000).The process is being developed in partnership with ongoing coastal and marine resource management and research projects in Eastern Africa.2 Awareness raising Awareness raising is a major component of most interventions associated with preventing reef decline and is an important part of developing a better understanding of issues amongst stakeholders and as a means of creating a willingness to change attitudes and behaviours. socio-economic monitoring of reef stakeholders is increasingly recognised as an important and critical component of our understanding and ability to effectively manage coral reef resources and ensure sustainable benefits to stakeholders. Monitoring protocols are being designed to be applied by members of the resource-use community. monitoring must consider environmental. Kenya (which are both in preliminary discussion phases). in recognition of the critical need for socio-economic information to support effective management and sustainable use. At the early stages of development.

The use of legal instruments as a means of implementing fisheries management. such as restrictions on gear.3. fisheries and coastal protection has been compared against the cost of destructive fishing.org/gcrmn/workshop%20report.doc) in achieving what they set out to do they are likely to be less successful in eliciting behavioural change if they do not recognise and balance the diversity of needs of different stakeholders.aquariumcouncil. the total value of coral reefs from tourism. ICZM or collaborative management interventions is widespread. communication and monitoring of regulations (Box 42). This includes certification schemes for collection areas. 2000. However. or against the benefits and costs of forestry activities (see Cesar. Through partnerships with local organisations and governments. importers and retailers. ideas and best practice and will help to ensure a co-ordinated approach and response amongst a diversity of stakeholders faced with a complexity of issues and problems. however. 2000.ioc. are not new to coral reefs and are common amongst many traditional community-based management systems. these are the primary goals of current legislation. 54 . to NGOs.g. Where the poor have no alternative but to continue with their existing. enables planning and decision-making to incorporate ecosystem values in cost–benefit analyses for development (Box 43).unesco. (From: Marine Aquarium Council website www. researchers and projects. In all cases. for examples).3. CITES) or encouraging sustainable trade (Box 41). 4. Such an approach increases local ownership of controls. for examples). There is a growing recognition of the importance of adopting a more systematic approach to informing and influencing that responds to the diversity of stakeholders and their wide ranging needs and aspirations (Box 40). (See: http://www. Where legislation has been more effective local resource-users have been included in the development. the fora have already begun a process of understanding how to better influence change towards sustainable use amongst a wide range of coral reef stakeholders.org/) The GCRMN South Asia programme has recently help set up coral reef forums in Sri Lanka and the Maldives. 4. from government departments. exporters. now illegal. collector associations.8 Economic valuations Economic valuations of coral reef resources are increasingly undertaken as a means to influence national level policy-making. Applying a systematic informing and influencing strategy developed by the Sustainable Coastal Livelihoods (SCL) project. whilst in the past the objectives of such measures may have had little to do with conservation or sustainable use. The fora provide important opportunities to exchange information. MAC has developed standards and launched a best practice certification scheme for those involved in each stage of the harvest and trade of marine ornamental species. it requires sufficient resources and support to implement at a local level and still remains open to corruption. coral mining.BOX 40 CORAL REEF FORUM IN SOUTH ASIA BOX 41 THE MARINE AQUARIUM COUNCIL The Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) is an international organisation established in 1998 with the aim of conserving coral reefs and other marine ecosystems by creating standards and certification for those engaged in the collection and care of ornamental marine life from reef to aquarium. The success of legal controls is largely determined by the strength of local support and is often compromised by the cost of enforcement and corruption. Calculating the economic value of coral reef resources to wider society and the national economy. In some situations. support is being provided to build the local capacity of collectors to comply with MAC standards and help ensure the sustainability of harvest. In many cases. Many of the controls for managing fisheries. Each forum includes a wide range of stakeholders concerned with the sustainable use and management of coral reefs. MPAs. these models have provided strong economic justification for coral reef conservation and have highlighted the role of coral reefs in national economic development planning. Economic valuation techniques have also been widely used in assessing the costs and benefits of establishing marine protected areas (see Cesar. In this way. livelihood the management objectives are unlikely to be achieved.To achieve this aim. user groups. such legislation is now in the hands of local or national government and is often led by international initiatives promoting controls over trade in endangered species (e.7 Legislation Another specific policy instrument is reef legislation. changes in the law that do not also address reef-dependent livelihoods are in danger of criminalising the livelihoods of the poor with additional adverse consequences. catch or controls over access to particular areas or species.

Without this acknowledgement there is the risk that economic values of reefs at national levels will eclipse the benefits of reefs to the poor in influencing policy-making and planning. (From: Cesar. Despite these problems. empowered local communities with a sense of ownership and successfully reinforced the earlier TPDF crackdown on dynamite fishing. tourism and coastal protection. 1999) In the Southern Tanzanian district of Mtwara. that the full benefits of reefs to the poor are more widely acknowledged at national levels in order that planning and decision-making can adequately address the needs of the poor in development.5 billion every year to the Philippine national economy. Enforcement can also be a dangerous activity and compensation for the high risk faced by the local wardens is limited. Of this. however. This clearly showed. members of the local police force and occasionally representatives from the Philippine National Police Maritime Command and the Coast Guard or Navy. the local communities are strongly committed to stopping dynamite fishing and have taken charge of controlling dynamite activities relieving the Tanzania People’s Defence Forces (TPDF). in well-organised and cohesive communities improved law enforcement has been achieved. and unknown costs due to lost food security and biodiversity. coral mining. This reflects a trend throughout fisheries management to address access rights in an attempt to overcome the increasing conflicts over scarce fisheries resources and the inability of many existing 55 . sedimentation and pollution.9 Property rights Attempts to limit the negative impacts of increasing coastal populations on poor reef stakeholders has focused largely on recognising and legitimising their rights to access reef benefits. therefore. using participatory approaches. and which jeopardises adherence to fisheries law enforcement as well as efforts to maintain well-trained wardens. 1999) BOX 43 EXAMPLES OF ECONOMIC VALUATIONS OF CORAL REEFS In a World Bank study on the economic value of coral reefs in Indonesia. For example.A collaboration of district leaders. initiated an extensive community education and awareness campaign of the harmful effects of dynamite fishing. which changes every 3 years. and over-fishing). The campaign. their organisation is dependent on the motivations of the local political leadership. Bantay Dagats provide good opportunities for the community to work together. 1996) In a review of the values of Philippine’s coastal resources. from the combined values of fisheries. (From:White and Cruz-Trinidad. fisheries and aquaculture contribute at least US$3. coral mining is estimated to yield net benefits to individuals of US$121 000 per km2 of reef. However. and consequently resultant interventions are likely not to adequately address the needs of the poor.35 billion to the national economy.3. a large part of the poor’s dependency on reefs is associated with subsistence and is linked to the role of the reef in their wider livelihood strategies. 4. Cesar (1996) analysed the net benefit to individuals and costs to society as a result of five different threats to coral reefs (poison fishing.These are known as Bantay Dagat or ‘guardians of the sea’ and are comprised of deputised fish wardens from local villages. 1998) While at a national level this information has made considerable contributions towards the level of importance attributed to coral reefs by policy-makers. Local fishery law enforcement teams have been established in many areas. It is not surprising. it is unable to expose the full value of reefs to people at a local level and in particular to the poor. It is of importance. (From: Sievert and Diamante-Fabunan. (From: Luhikula. US$2900– 481 900 in tourism value. US$67 000 in forest damage. blast fishing. mangroves. while causing net losses to society of US$93 600 in fisheries value. that the value of reefs to the poor do not feature significantly in national level statistics and are difficult if not meaningless to define in terms of monetary values. the Rural Integrated Project Support (RIPS) initiative and a local association SHIRIKISHO. As revealed in previous sections. that for none of the threats do the short term benefits even approach the long-term costs (under the assumptions of a 10% discount rate and 25 year horizon).BOX 42 LOCAL INVOLVEMENT IN CORAL REEF LEGISLATION In 1978 the Philippines government passed a number of measures that would enable local government and communities to share in the responsibility of fisheries regulations enforcement. White and Cruz-Trinidad (1998) have estimated that the combined value of coral reefs. US$12 000–260 000 in coastal protection value. the total area of coral reef was estimated to contribute an annual economic benefit of at least US$1.

1998). which portion of the fishery may be used.controls to sustainably manage open access fishery resources (FAO.gouv. or controlling nutrient and pesticide pollutants by promoting sustainable agricultural practices (Box 44). scientists. 2000c). These are often undertaken as part of collaborative management or ICZM initiatives. the extent to which EIA addresses the specific impact of a development on the poor is questionable.3. Often such initiatives require those involved to have a certain level of language skills. This may require extra support or skills training for poorer households. shape projects to suit the local environment and present the predictions and options to decision-makers. environmentalists. The objectives of the BBP are to minimize the environmental impacts of banana farms. • How the rights are conferred and upheld. and others in Guatemala and Honduras are enrolled in the programme. find ways and means to reduce adverse impacts.fr/icri/) 4. community leaders and government agencies. the definition and enforcement of their rights to access reef resources is an important mechanism to control exploitation by outsiders and ensure reef benefits are sustained for the local community. However. who has the right to use the resources of a fishery. the extent to which the poorer members of a community may benefit from eco-tourism is unclear. allocate potential benefits. including erosion problems and pollution from chemicals. as highlighted in the FAO State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture Report (2000c). Colombia. However.This has been achieved through the use of market incentives and eco-labelling. Standards for responsible production were first negotiated in Costa Rica through discussions with banana producers. and their contribution to sustainable fisheries. sustainable tourism and eco-tourism are frequently promoted. female-headed households. in particular the determination of traditional boundaries and rights-holders. In addition.environnement.10 Eco-tourism In an effort to control the adverse effects of large-scale coastal tourism developments and to provide accessible alternative livelihood opportunities to local communities. as is the extent to which decision-makers alter development designs in the general rush to capitalise on globalisation.g. 4. However their application to contemporary coastal resources management is not necessarily a straightforward exercise and depends on their compatibility with government policy. which depends largely on the values and objectives of traditional systems of control (Ruddle. or to be the owners of particular physical resources (boats or extra rooms). which may or may not reinforce management objectives. there is a need to cater for the livelihood aspirations of those excluded from the fishery and to date few systematic approaches have been used to address this issue. • How the rights create incentives for those involved – by virtue of the fact that they. Throughout the Pacific. More than 150 farms have so far been certified in Ecuador. and how and when it may be used. Panama and Costa Rica (including large companies and in Ecuador a co-operative of 35 small farms). the focus of many interventions is to attempt to mitigate the unavoidable negative impacts on coral reefs. access rights to reef resources are defined and controlled within the traditional customary marine tenure systems. problems are likely to arise with property rights systems in fisheries management relating to: • How the rights are defined – in other words. it may also not be a socially or culturally acceptable alternative for some households. social and economic impacts of a project prior to decision-making.3. to lesser or greater degrees. this has involved attempts to control sources of pollution. However. For poor small-scale fishers. It aims to predict impacts at an early stage in project planning and design. 56 .12 Reducing habitat destruction and enhancing habitat rehabilitation Recognising the already significant populations and high levels of industrialisation and urbanisation in and upstream of coastal areas. such as controlling sediment run-off by improving land use practices. promoting small-scale. while maximizing the benefits to workers and communities. e. 4. the clarity of definition and robustness of rights. in particular fisheries development policy. In some cases.3. (From: ICRI’s Best Practices for the Protection and Management of Coral Reefs http://www.11 Environmental impact assessment Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a tool used to identify the ecological. low impact activities which provide direct benefits to the locals involved.The Better Banana Programme (BBP) involving many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean began in 1991 in an attempt to halt deforestation by banana companies and promote environmental and social standards in the banana industry. BOX 44 THE BETTER BANANA PROJECT: CONTROLLING EROSION AND POLLUTION FROM BANANA PLANTATIONS The coral reefs of many countries in the Caribbean and Latin America have suffered high levels of degradation associated with sedimentation and pollution from fertilizers and pesticides originating from banana cultivation.

health services and schools. development and evaluation is needed as opposed to the rush of many BOX 45 PROVIDING ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS TO CORAL MINERS IN SRI LANKA In an attempt to stop illegal coral mining activities.The main reason for failure was the lack of relevant experience and skills in the different farming activities. or one acre of bare land. but also encouraged by the increased income opportunities offered by the programmes. planning. 2002) 57 . is high the success of reef habitat restoration will be constrained.In other cases. mitigating impacts on coral reefs have involved attempts to restore the environment. Experience suggests that for successful interventions to be developed and sustained a greater understanding of local livelihoods is required. restoration attempts are still at early and experimental stages and the longer-term success is uncertain. the programmes have largely failed. In the past this has often proved rather difficult because the alternatives suggested have rarely been well linked into the resources of the poor or to the requirements of local markets (Box 45). (From: Perea. motivated mainly through a fear of a crackdown on coral mining activities. in addition to farming. It is also crucial to understand the wider constraints and opportunities on local livelihoods in order to develop alternatives that are viable in the longer term. many reef-focused interventions are beginning to search for alternatives to substitute the incomes and livelihoods lost for those dependent on the reef. the Coast Conservation Department in Sri Lanka has implemented a number of programmes to provide alternative livelihood opportunities to coral miners. the success of alternatives is limited to the lifespan of the programme initiating the change. The experience demonstrates that while higher incomes and fear of punishment may be an incentive to change they are insufficient to sustain change. considerable time. such as transport. they can actually increase risk in the short to medium term. which led to low productivity and declining incomes. In either case. For the relocated families there was also a lack of basic facilities. understanding.At other sites. families were offered opportunities to engage in poultry farming. An increasingly important role of development agencies is to take part of that risk and support the uptake of viable and sustainable income alternatives or to enhance existing livelihood opportunities. such as pollution. They may also involve enhancing or diversifying existing activities through direct changes to the activities themselves or the wider context in which they operate. However. it was generally with those people who were able to diversify into other non-coral mining options. 4. Where the negative impact of resource use or externalities.4 DIVERSIFYING AND ENHANCING LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES The poor are continually seeking alternative income-generating opportunities both to supplement current diminishing sources. which placed major constraints on livelihoods. and to provide opportunities for occupational migration. which looks holistically at livelihoods and develops solutions in partnership with people. In those instances that the programme succeeded. More emphasis on a process of dialogue. Solutions may not simply require the development of an alternative income-generating opportunity to replace an illegal or declining option. In light of the declining availability of and access to reef resources. is likely to generate more acceptable and sustainable results. In the late 1980s these programmes focused on providing agricultural employment as an alternative to illegal coral mining. In all locations a large number of people joined the programmes. without first reducing or eliminating these threats. Or they have ignored the wider influences that society places on the poor. In some cases they have not acknowledged the seasonality context in which the poor operate or the shocks and changes that they confront. after careful consideration of the opportunities and threats. expertise and resources may be necessary. with many people returning to coral mining activities. or on specific reef species through stock enhancement programmes. In many cases. There is now a growing recognition that a more systematic approach. This occurs often enough to dissuade the poor from this course of action until they are in very desperate situations. which will limit the scale of restoration. Whilst income activity diversification and occupational migration are often adopted to reduce risk. This may focus either on restoration of the reef habitat itself. despite these incentives. or to replace unsustainable or destructive reef exploitation patterns. For alternative livelihood interventions to be long lasting a better understanding of local skills and experiences are needed and support is required to build local capacity to adapt. In many cases. with alternatives unable to exist without external support or to adapt to the dynamic nature of livelihoods. which was identified as an option in line with the education levels of coastal communities. In some sites this involved the relocation of families from the coast and the provision of one acre of coconut or rubber tree plantation.

An absence of support mechanisms in times of crisis burden the poor with high levels of risk. Clearly while strengthening the underlying support from government for basic services is critical. 4. than in many other areas of India. government sector jobs offer an important alternative to reefbased livelihoods and provide a major source of income and prosperity to the islands. For participation to increase success in terms of poverty reduction it must engage reef-dependent people in an equitable way – it must understand that the community is not homogenous and that the poor are often difficult to ‘see’ and engage in the development process – it must also consider the powerful influences of patronage and external market forces and attempt to engage with these creatively to transform them into positive influences. high levels of government support and subsidies have developed local infrastructure and services. or traditionally skilled have been by-passed by this development. these approaches in the main still view participation as a functional approach and few initiatives are addressing reefrelated issues with a people. a growing recognition that greater levels of involvement of reef-dependent communities in identifying and solving problems is the way forwards. Therefore. be locally acceptable. Support must also come from government services to enhance safety nets which need to be better targeted to the poor. however. This has rapidly contributed to polarity and income disparity within the island populations and has resulted in an increasing incidence of poor households (Hoon. 58 . On the remote Lakshadweep Islands and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands of India. embracing the diversity of poor stakeholders and incorporating local aspects of poverty. A key part in future changes will be more systematic approaches to understanding the complexity of people’s lives and to responding to the challenges they face. let alone.ac. Many households have benefited from these opportunities and overall the average household income has increased. Support must be given to help people change themselves and reduce the risks associated with changing. most attempts to address the livelihoods of the poor were unsystematic and not based on a sound understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of existing or potential livelihoods. the poorly educated. As a consequence the success rate of such measures is limited. (See: www. In response the SCL project has developed a framework not only for systematically identifying diversified livelihoods. it will only create positive changes for the poor if its development is targeted at the poor. a burden which in some cases is increasing with the decline of reef benefits. However. In the main these have been used to address biophysical aims and so evidence for their effectiveness in addressing livelihoods issues is less obvious. while recognising threats and be dynamic in the longer term. There is. Solutions must be developed together.htm) opposed to steady salaried government employment options. left behind to pursue reef-related activities as 4. The very nature of poverty often excludes the poor from the benefits of development. in terms of education. However.uk/imm/scl. to better target development a more detailed understanding of the poor is required. which formerly provided safety nets and keystone resources in times of hardship. such that local communities have access to higher standards of support. interventions to apply a shopping list of potential alternatives in order to meet project timescales and objectives (Box 46). health and sanitation.ex.BOX 46 SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS ENHANCEMENT AND DIVERSIFICATION As part of the Sustainable Coastal Livelihoods (SCL) project it was realised that. Halting reef decline in an equitable and participatory fashion is not sufficient to change people’s behaviours and enhance livelihood security. Poor health and education weaken the potential of the poor to adapt and change. frequently the elderly. but also for identifying ways to enhance existing livelihoods to make them more sustainable.5 STRENGTHENING LIVELIHOOD SUPPORT SYSTEMS The capacity of basic services and support systems and their accessibility to poor reef stakeholders is critical in determining the poor’s ability to respond and cope with change. a poverty focus. whilst promoting alternative livelihoods for reef-dependent communities is considered a major policy instrument in reef conservation. On the Lakshadweep Islands.6 SUMMARY There are a wide diversity of approaches that have been used in association with reefs and reef-dependent livelihoods. build on strengths and opportunities. which goes beyond standard measures. 2003).

Thus many reef stakeholders are very poor people. particularly female-headed households and vulnerable groups such as the elderly. including high value export outlets. where women are excluded from production.2 The benefits of reefs to the livelihoods of the poor Reef resources provide a multitude of different benefits to the poor. while others are extremely vulnerable (such as in the Pacific). coral reefs offer a physically and economically accessible. it is clear that dispersed around the world there are considerable numbers of poor people dependent on reefs. The diversity of reef products support multiple opportunities for direct exploitation for people with many different skills and access a wide range of different markets. preserving opportunities for those with few financial or physical resources. shallow coral reef resources are often the principal source of food and income security. Reef resources also help people cope with. the reef can also affect the interaction between reefdependent people. which in turn provide opportunities for small-scale reef fishers. coral reefs offer opportunities for women to collect from the reef by foot. Some are very poor (especially in Africa and South Asia). However.1. For all of these people. but that dependence is absolute. and different reef-based strategies between men and women spread household risk. which in turn provide a reserve of food in all weather conditions. Because of this hidden nature the profile of the coastal poor is only just beginning to be understood. longer-term trends. including seasonally stable sources of food. 2002). as a source of pleasure for tourists. Among those people dependent on coral reefs the numbers living in poverty is significant. 1998). There is also a growing dependence in wider society on reefs as part of national heritage. some are part-time users who only occasionally depend on the reef. they are often the marginalized ones that do not have legal title to coastal resources. that there is a wide diversity of stakeholders who depend upon reef resources. Not only do reefs provide a range of benefits in terms of the resources that reef-dependent people use directly in their livelihoods. which provides a complex range of benefits affecting different groups of people in many different ways. Some reef stakeholders depend upon reef resources as a regular part of their livelihood. The structural and species diversity of the reef prohibits large-scale industrial production and favours small-scale production. one quarter of which occur in least developed countries (UNDP. but that poverty is often hidden from sight. 5. and who are often seen as an obstacle to conservation or development. Unlike many fisheries. especially in times of emergency. We do know. These benefit flows help C 5. with over 200 million living near reefs in Southeast Asia and nearly 100 million living near reefs in the Indian Ocean (Bryant et al.1 The global distribution of reefs and reef stakeholders oral reefs are found in shallow waters throughout the tropical world and dominate the coastlines of many countries in the South Pacific.. It has been estimated that over half a billion people live within 100 km of a coral reef. Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean. such as seagrasses and mangroves.1 OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT SITUATION income and status. their resources and the factors that control how they access and use those resources. and adapt to. The common pool nature of many reef resources allows easy entry for those who are displaced from other sectors. the presence of reefs may benefit people in their interaction with the politics. diverse and highly productive resource. While these figures are often quoted in the literature. as a dumping ground for waste. wider changes that affect their lives whether they are regular seasonal changes. including some of the poorest countries in the world.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS 5. Two-thirds of all reef areas are found in developing countries. In this way. and their level of dependence. the actual number of people who depend upon reefs. others use the reef as a safety net. are not well known. medicines and a source of 59 . It is the reef that often gives rise to islands that provide habitats for people and lenses of fresh water for drinking and agriculture. For poor coastal households.1. The reef also protects coastal villages from storms and wave action and provides shelter to lagoons and other productive areas. this has significant benefits in empowering women in the household. culture or social relations which affect their lives. or periodic shocks and stresses. however. or as a focus of study and research. For example. but the high degree of skill required to understand the reef fully means that barriers to entry still limit the uptake of more complex harvesting strategies. building materials. a medium of exchange. The poor often fall in the gaps between coastal development activities. throughout the world the diversity of reef species has provided opportunities for implementation of fisheries development policies focused on high value export markets. The physical structure of the reef dictates that many activities are done communally and the traditional linkages between reefs and fish and the spirit world mean that reefs can be socially and spiritually unifying.

adding increasing burdens of risk and transaction costs on the poor who typically have few other alternatives. which threatens to damage large areas of reef worldwide. poor reef stakeholders have become marginalised from access to reef benefits. these changes have resulted in an increasing reliance on reef benefits as large coastal populations. This shift must be accompanied . no more so than in the low lying coralline islands scattered throughout the Indo-Pacific. overwhelm and degrade alternative resources.3 Changing reef benefits and future vulnerability The ability of coral reefs to continue to provide benefits to the poor is changing. In the face of current population and development trends and predictions of global warming this situation will worsen. 5.4 Attempts to address poverty and reef-related issues On international. unless there are radical changes in the way reefs and reefdependent communities are viewed and worked with. a situation that has led to increasing pressure on the reef resource typically resulting in overharvesting and reef decline. others can use the reef as a crucial safety net in difficult times. Increasingly dependent on a declining resource. the livelihoods of the poor reef stakeholders are vulnerable. declining coral reef resources have become a significant focus for concern and the target for numerous interventions. Others use the reef as a keystone resource that they tap into at certain times of the year when other resources are not available to them. over which the coastal poor have varying degrees of control. In recognition of this failure and the priority for poverty alleviation of many donors and govenments. The use of the benefit flows are not just for subsistence. In the Pacific. market forces and climate change. One of the principal factors responsible for declining reef benefits is reef degradation. and how to best support them in coping with declining reef benefits. Coral reef ecosystems are extremely sensitive to change and easily suffer from disturbance. and as the stability provided by the reef is eroded. income or food security. For the poor reef stakeholders. In some situations. widespread development and increasing global market forces. the reef provides the very means to keep many people out of poverty and so it often appears that reefdependent communities are not as badly off as some of their neighbours. acting indirectly or directly. These interventions have tended to be motivated by a prevailing international priority for biodiversity conservation and consequently their focus is on preventing reef decline and protecting reefs from sources of degradation. livelihoods have often become criminalized by regulations. which has arisen as a result of increasing pressures from population. But in the longer term the threat of climate change is perhaps one of the most significant large-scale causes of reef decline. and the diversity of those strategies reflects the diversity of type and form of the benefits that flow from the reef ecosystem. Future interventions require a shift in balance towards people-focused coastal development supporting the sustainable livelihoods of the coastal poor. This is compounded by a lack of understanding of poor reefdependent people: who they are. despite this shift there remains a lack of acknowledgement that global priorities of reef conservation and biodiversity protection are not necessarily shared with poor stakeholders trying to survive from day to day. what problems they face. the reef provides a much stronger platform for social and cultural development. Throughout the world the capacity of coral reefs to buffer risks and vulnerabilities and provide livelihood stability is eroding as a result of changing access to and availability of reef resources. for instance. However. This predisposition has dictated the priorities. These changes are being driven by a complex web of interacting factors. as well as the natural impacts of storms and predator outbreaks. However. external markets and well-meaning efforts to halt reef decline have excluded the poor. with increasing examples of success. many interventions are evolving towards increasingly participatory and collaborative approaches. development. Lucrative markets for reef species often drive unsustainable and destructive extraction regimes. there is a growing consensus that in the absence of meaningful consideration of local needs many interventions have failed. These changes threaten the benefit flows that the reefs provide to almost all reef-dependent communities and seriously undermine the livelihoods of some of the poorest people. so is their income and food security. approaches and outcomes of interventions and has inadvertently resulted in a lack of attention to. As coastal areas become ever more populated. many reef-dependent communities seem idyllic. Some people are able to develop strategies that make full-time regular use of the reef or its resources. In these cases. The reefs are also degraded by coastal and inland developments and the pollution they produce. what their priorities are. In many instances. which further damage the reef. but there is a growing level of vulnerability amongst these communities that threatens to undo much of the work that has been achieved through the wider development process. In the near future many of those who have been helped above the poverty line will start to slip back below it. Furthermore. and often exclusion of. issues of poverty. which is not always considered in economic analyses of the reef.1. where coastal tourism developments.1. regional and national levels. whose strategies are mainly land-based. 60 5. food security and livelihoods are increasingly emerging in coral reef fora.reef-dependent people develop a range of livelihood strategies. poor reef stakeholders. increasing numbers of reef stakeholders have begun to compete for access to reef benefits.

and targeted at. The current Reef Livelihoods Assessment project has furthered that understanding considerably. This is outlined below: 5.1 Enhancing the understanding of reef and povertyrelated issues • Recognising the dependence of the poor and vulnerable on reef resources and the need to understand and address their specific needs and aspirations. through diversification and enhancement of livelihoods. • Recognising the diversity of stakeholders and the need to introduce systematic informing and influencing strategies to create opportunities for sharing information in forms that are accessible to.2. • Recognising that the lives of poor stakeholders are diverse and complex and a holistic understanding of this complexity is needed in order to develop viable responses. Currently these aspects are often overlooked or tagged on to programmes aimed at preventing reef decline. These deserve considerably more attention if the impacts of current interventions are to succeed in sustaining reef benefits and the livelihoods of poor reef stakeholders in the longer term. scientific knowledge systems. best practice and success. to develop viable. 5. • Recognising the need to raise awareness and change attitudes in order to harmonise these multiple objectives and actively promote the priorities. economic. indigenous or local knowledge systems and the need to enhance their integration with formal. • Recognising the importance and value of informal. • Acknowledging the role and importance of political and patronage systems and the need to incorporate and work with them to ensure positive change. The various interventions targeting reefs. exploitation or development. • Recognising the need to secure rights of access to reef 61 .2. • Initiating a process which starts small.e. which builds on existing strengths and recognises weaknesses and threats. • Recognising that the nature of poverty often means that the poor are hidden or excluded from interventions and may coexist in coastal areas with apparent wealth. environmental.3 Enhancing the livelihood security of the poor and vulnerable dependent on reefs • Promoting a systematic approach. including interventions which systematically deal with enhancing livelihood security of the poor.2. • Recognising that the poor are not a single homogenous group and an understanding of the different types of poor stakeholder is essential to effectively target the poor. which can accommodate change and which avoids mechanistic approaches and preconceived solutions.by a greater consideration of the full context of the livelihoods of the poor. as well as natural resources). who have multiple and varying objectives ranging from conservation and protection. • Promoting participation. and interventions which focus on strengthening support services for the poor. governance and vulnerability issues and overcomes the difficulty of looking beyond natural resource management. based on an understanding of threats. different types of stakeholders.2 Promoting a balanced and integrated approach to reef and poverty-related issues • Recognising that there are multiple stakeholders involved in reef issues. From this a set of principles of good practice begin to emerge. which support livelihoods and complement reef access in times of hardship or crisis and enhancing access to these support mechanisms by the poor and vulnerable. from those at the local ground level to those at an international level. • Strengthening existing mechanisms. symptomatic of ICZM approaches.2 5. 5. PRINCIPLES FOR ADDRESSING POVERTY-RELATED REEF ISSUES Based on our current understanding of poverty and coral reefs it is clear that for future interventions to effectively address poverty among reef stakeholders the current approaches to poverty-related reef issues need to change. coastal communities and poverty reduction suggest some important ways in which this change can occur. • Encouraging an integrated multi-disciplinary approach. needs and aspirations of the coastal poor in approaches to policy development and interventions. and builds on the strengths of experience. weaknesses and opportunities. which targets poor stakeholders. education etc. • Promoting a flexible and process-orientated approach that recognises the dynamic and complex nature of livelihoods. which combines local participation with national level support across multiple sectors relevant to the livelihoods of local communities (i. concerning reefs and people and the need to more effectively share and apply this knowledge. • Promoting a broader consideration of coastal community development. which enhance or diversify existing options for the poor and vulnerable. • Recognising the wealth of existing knowledge. • Developing partnerships between different agencies and groups to enhance knowledge and skill sharing and involvement in the policy and development process. and facilitates their involvement in agreeing common entry points and throughout the subsequent research or development process. sustainable and dynamic livelihood opportunities. both formal and informal. to sustainable use. which incorporates social. health.

in many circles the awareness of povertyrelated reef issues is still in its infancy. This role has the potential to place pro-poor development on to a very high profile agenda in the resource conservation field that offers the opportunity for widespread attitude change. However. 5. efforts to rehabilitate habitats and mitigate the impacts of development on the poor and vulnerable. attitudes and institutional orientation required to respond effectively to reef-related poverty.• • • • • • resources for the poor and vulnerable through prioritising their needs in policy development and where appropriate incorporating existing traditional or local rights. livelihood enhancement. The implications for international development targets are serious in terms of both people moving back into poverty. Supporting efforts to understand.3 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The policy formulation and implementation environment surrounding reef-dependent people is only partially focused on those people. This requires a significant level of support to help to re-orientate interventions directed at the poor. practical uptake and policy influence. This study has shown that there is already a large amount of information out there. There is a considerable short-fall in the required skills. new approaches to sustainable livelihoods. From this. development and exploitation of reef ecosystems grounded in sound environmental. poverty reduction and reef management can begin to be developed. address and combat impacts of global climate change. some are currently being developed and others exist. However. Promoting co-management in fisheries and coastal development and the need to ensure sustainability at all levels: environmental. awareness. meso and micro levels. consensus building. but this has rarely been brought together to provide a cohesive body of knowledge that can inform policy. and an increasing trend in the loss of reef-based environmental resources. use and manage their reefs. This requires a large degree of awareness raising. Unless this is achieved in the near future many poor people will confront greater levels of hardship than they have faced before and many coastal communities above the poverty 62 line will start to fall into poverty. At the macro-level there is a need for a change in the global policy framework that shifts the focus from reef conservation to the sustainable and equitable use of reef ecosystems where poverty reduction is a central theme rather than a means towards an end. economic. Many of the approaches that need to be applied have still to be developed. This applies not only to governments in countries where reef dependence is an issue.4 SUMMARY There is a need for a major shift in policy. agencies and initiatives to assist the changes needed to address poverty-related reef issues more effectively. social and governance. there remains insufficient capacity to understand and respond more effectively. Undertaking. policy reform and the uptake of a new array of policy instruments. 5. social and economic impact assessments. Recognising the potential loss of physical protection from the reef in the future and the need to enhance disaster planning and responses which target the poor and vulnerable. Promoting a precautionary principle to management interventions. To bring about this level of change requires a series of initiatives at the macro. There is a growing willingness to accept this kind of reform. but also to regional intergovernmental and NGO agencies concerned with these issues. There is an urgent need for guidance and support amongst coral reef practitioners. where feasible. For many others. The poor have even more to teach us about the way they live with. approaches and policy instruments in relation to reefs if major equity and sustainability problems are to be avoided in the future. there is a growing awareness of this deficiency and recognition that coral reef conservation cannot meet its desired objectives without better consideration of poverty issues and the sustainable livelihoods of reef-dependent poor people. Support at the macro-level is also required to reflect the interconnected nature of reef problems and to deal with the interstitial and dispersed nature of reef-dependent poverty. At the micro-level there is much to be done in understanding the nature of reef-dependent poverty. Many of the key international institutions and initiatives concerned with coral reefs are those whose primary objective is nature conservation. This change in thinking has also been encouraged by the shifting priorities of international donor agencies and governments towards poverty alleviation. There is a need for a major drive to re-orient the current approaches to reefs and reef-dependent people. the main emphasis is on reef conservation. despite growing realisation of past and current deficiencies in dealing with poverty and reefs. . Enhancing or maintaining the carrying capacity of the environment by reducing the adverse effects of externalities from other sectors through greater inter-sector and international cooperation at the policy-making and policy implementation stages. At the meso-level there is a need for substantial capacity building in coastal community development and poverty reduction approaches. but a lack of coordinated understanding about how to achieve it. but need to be brought together and applied to reef issues. These need to be based on a much better understanding of the issues facing the reef-dependent poor.

.ANNEX 1 COUNTRY OUTLINES OF POVERTY AND REEFS T he following annex provides an outline of national level statistics relating to reefs and poverty for the four regions identified as poverty-reef hotspots.. 2002) with the highest levels of poverty occurring on Anjouan Island (WB. 2001). 2001). 2001). South Asia. 2001a). one of the poorest provinces in the country. 2002). and the northern Nampula province.. with a wide lagoon separating fringing reefs from a barrier reef 3–15 km 63 . minority groups still suffer poverty and unemployment (CIA. Madagascar Madagascar also ranks as one of the world’s Low Human Development countries (UNDP. 2000). 2002). Reefs are also found scattered along the southern coast. 2000). with poverty predominant in rural areas and particularly high in the southwest region of Toliary (WB. Mauritius According to the UNDP Human Development Report (2002). Coral reefs also surround the island of Mayotte. both located on the coast. There are over 4500 registered small-scale traditional fishers in the Comoros (Spalding et al.. 2001). A large proportion of the population live in coastal areas. In areas where the coastline is bordered by coral reefs. with large numbers associated with Mozambique’s capital and second largest city. EASTERN AFRICA Comoros Comoros ranks as one of the third poorest of the Medium Human Development countries (UNDP. 1996). However. the entirely small-scale and non-mechanised fishery is largely focused on the coral reef and associated near-shore resources and forms an integral part of the livelihood systems of coastal people. Fishery activities are predominantly small-scale and recent estimates suggest that as many as 90 000 people are involved in small-scale fisheries (excluding those involved in trading and processing). 1994a). which are mainly focused on reef formations and reef-associated species. the European Union and in recent years on Reunion. despite the apparent wealth. which is bordered along the western shores by a limited area of fringing coral reef. Reunion and Mayotte Reunion and Mayotte are French territories.. investment from private industry. which forms the basis of the economy. The volcanic islands are densely populated and are surrounded by fringing coral reefs. Coastal areas are densely populated and coral reefs border much of the coastline and surround offshore islands and barrier islands in the north (Spalding et al. Coral reefs are widespread in the north and off the southwest coast. whose development has relied heavily on financial assistance from France.. a considerable increase from FAO estimates (Table 3) (Wilson et al. Inshore lagoons. Coral reefs dominate the northern coast of Cabo Delgado. Both islands are home to relatively small populations and on the larger island of Reunion. on Reunion. Mozambique According to the UNDP Human Development Index (2002). accounting for 43% of the total production and involving approximately 50 000 people living in 1250 villages (Gabrie et al. Kenya Kenya is one of the lowest ranking Medium Human Development countries (UNDP. Mozambique ranks as the sixth poorest country in the world. this small-scale fishery is of crucial importance to local communities as a source of subsistence and livelihood (FAO. and support fishery activities. Fisheries are largely small-scale and traditional and predominantly target the near-shore coral reef resources (Spalding et al. Southeast Asia and the Western Caribbean. A large small-scale marine fishery operates along the coast associated with the coral reef and near-shore resources. reefs and offshore banks are the focus of fisheries. 2002) with greatest poverty occurring in rural areas (WB. Both Mauritius and Rodriguez islands are surrounded by fringing reefs and Mauritius also holds jurisdiction over a string of reef-fringed islands to the north (Spalding et al. Mauritius is a high ranking Medium Human Development country. The main island of Mauritius is comparatively well developed compared with the smaller island of Rodriguez. Marine fisheries account for more than 90% of total fish production and play an important role in the national economy and the livelihoods of coastal people. such as the northern province of Cabo Delgado. along with coastal and reef tourism and the sugar cane industry associated with the main island of Mauritius (Naim et al. Although it contributes only minimally to total national fisheries production. which remains relatively undeveloped. the majority of people live close to the coast.. 2003). 1995). namely: Eastern Africa.

Coastal and reef-based tourism is also an important industry and one of the main sources of employment (Spalding et al. tuna fishing relying on bait fish from the reef constitutes a major part of the local economy and reef harvest is the main source of subsistence for poor households (Hoon.. It is also the country with the greatest expanse of coral reef.. on agriculture and fishing. Reef fisheries have been estimated to contribute to 5–10% of the total marine landings (Pet-Soede et al. 2000. An extensive coral reef system surrounds the high islands in the north and is the foundation of the coralline islands and atolls in the south of the archipelago (Spalding et al. which is found along most of the coast and surrounding offshore islands (Spalding et al.. Coral reefs are known to border much of the southern coastline. its high GDP per capita compared to other Eastern African countries and its small population. SOUTH ASIA Bangladesh Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in South Asia and ranks as a Low Human Development country (UNDP. and the Gulf of Kutch. Reefs and lagoons are the focus of the small-scale fishery and supply a large proportion of the fish consumed nationally (Jennings et al.offshore (Spalding et al.. with a third of the population living on less than 1 US$ a day (Table 4). 2003)... 2001c).. 1994c. Singh and Andrews. Coastal and reef-based tourism is growing in importance on both islands. Somalia Although statistical information on poverty in Somalia is limited. 2000). associated with a chain of 22 coral atolls running 800 km from north to south and including 1200 low coralline islands. amount to 21 000 in the Gulf of Mannar and 20 000 in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Rengasamy et al. but coral reefs are limited to two main areas off the mainland coast: the Gulf of Mannar. 2002) with poverty overwhelming associated with rural areas (NBS. Coral reefs are the foundation of life on the Maldives.. 2003. the numbers associated with coral reef areas and fisheries is small. The coastline is inhabited by a large and rapidly growing coastal population and is bordered by the largest area of shallow coral reef in Eastern Africa. of which 199 are inhabited. with over a third of its population living on less than 1 US$ a day (Table 4). Estimates of the numbers of small-scale fishers. 2001). Spalding et al. respectively). Political instability and civil war have severely affected the country for over a decade and currently serious food shortages are affecting a large proportion of the population. On Reunion. near-shore fishing is small-scale and coral reefs have been estimated to contribute to approximately 10% of the total coastal production (Naim et al. is estimated to rank among the highest of the Medium Human Development countries (UNDP. in the northwest. However. and contribute significantly to the subsistence and income of coastal fishing communities in the four reef areas. 2001). 2001). Maldives The Maldives has the highest ranking Human Development Index of all South Asian coastal nations. 2001). an estimated 16% of the population remain below national poverty lines and distribution of income is highly unequal (WB. Somalia is recognised to be one of the least developed countries in the world. Fisheries are nearly entirely small-scale with a long tradition and provide an essential component to the livelihoods of a large portion of the coastal population (Pilcher and Krupp. 2001). despite the large coastal population and significant number of people employed in fisheries and aquaculture.. 2003). 2002). with coral reefs limited to a small area surrounding the coast of St Martin’s Island. 2000). 1995. On Lakshadweep where the reefs form the foundation of the lowlying coralline islands and home to 60 595 people. Coastal areas are heavily populated. Livelihoods are still based predominantly 64 . with estimates of the numbers of fulltime marine fishers ranging from 10 000 to 15 000. in the south. with the remaining reefs associated with the remote islands of Lakshadweep off the west coast and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands off the east coast. Coral reefs form an important source of subsistence and income for the coastal population and more than 30% of marine fish landings are estimated to have been harvested on or adjacent to coral reefs (Muhando. 2000. India India is one of the lower ranking Medium Human Development countries. However. Near-shore fisheries are similarly small-scale on Mayotte and employ an estimated 3600 fishers (Spalding et al.. 2002). which although not included in the most recent human development ranking. 2001). Reefs are also frequently accessed by part-time nonprofessional fishers. who reach the shallow reef by foot (Naim et al. despite the countries high level of development. White and Rajasuriya. see Table 3). 2000). 2002).. Seychelles The Seychelles is a well-developed archipelagic nation. who predominantly operate from small non-mechanised craft (FAO. Tanzania Tanzania ranks as one of the world’s Low Human Development countries (UNDP. 1999).

which stretches over 95 000 km encompassing over 17 000 islands (including sandbanks and rocks). with the most extensive reefs located around the coast of Sabah (Spalding et al. the source of bait fish for a large tuna fishery. however. Spalding et al. 1996). The marine fishery is mainly coastal and near-shore arising almost entirely from small-scale and subsistence activities. Mayanmar Myanmar does not rank particularly high in socio-economic development when compared to its Southeast Asia neighbours. 2002).. 2002). they are known to be extensive around offshore islands in the north and south. Indonesia Indonesia is a lower ranking Medium Human Development country (UNDP. Little is known of the coral reefs off the coast of Cambodia’s relatively short coastline. China China is a middle-ranking Medium Human Development country (UNDP. 2001). 2001). Little information is available on the fisheries interactions with these coral reefs areas. 1999a). form the foundation of livelihoods and food security for hundreds of thousands of subsistence fishers (Cesar. According to the Asian Development Bank (2000). which are estimated to provide the principle livelihood for 10% of households and a part time livelihood for a further 34% of households (FAO. Half the population live in coastal areas and while little information exists on the coral reefs. although overfishing is cited as a source of coral reef degradation in these areas (Spalding et al. is likely to be an underestimation (ADB. 2002). 2001). patchy reefs also occur in the southwest and in deeper waters off the west coast. still living on less than 1US$ a day (ADB.. 2001). or 23% of the rural population. It has been estimated that the coral reefs. 2002).. particularly in the west and south.providing land area. the area is believed to be small and the full extent of their support to fisheries and coastal communities is also unknown. Island and reef-based tourism also represents a significant industry. of which 6000 are inhabited. and around the Mergui Archipelago (a group of 800 forested and reef fringed islands) and the offshore Burma banks (Spalding et al. 2002). 1998. with more than 56 million people living on less than 1 US$ a day.. 2002) with a densely populated coastline. According to the 1999 census of marine fisheries. 2002). 2001). Pakistan Pakistan is again one of the poorer countries in South Asia and ranks as a Low Human Development country (UNDP. Malaysia Malaysia is an upper ranking Medium Development country (UNDP. Marine fisheries constitute more 65 . and supporting smaller reef fisheries for limited local consumption and growing exports. Sri Lanka Sri Lanka represents a middle ranking Medium Human Development country (UNDP. Small-scale fishers dominate the Malaysian fishing industry. Fringing coral reefs are estimated to occur along approximately 2% of the coastline mainly in the northwest and east (Spalding et al. with a large proportion of its population living in coastal areas.. 1996). Cambodia is officially one of the least developed countries in Southeast Asia. there was a total of 115 014 active fishers distributed among 1437 villages around the coast of Sri Lanka.. estimates suggest that as many as one in four households could be considered poor.. 2001). respectively). similar to Bangladesh. Little is known of the coral reefs in Pakistan. SOUTHEAST ASIA Cambodia According to the UNDP Human Development report (2002). construction materials. predominantly operating small-scale craft (59% of fishing craft are small-scale and traditional) (NARA. the largest extent associated with any single nation (Spalding et al. which dominate the near-shore. with an estimated 213 million people. Shallow coastal waters are home to 18% of the world’s coral reefs. Poverty remains concentrated in rural areas. 2001). but their overall dependence on coral reef resources is limited to those operations in the vicinity of coral reef areas.. Coral reefs are limited along China’s South China Sea coastline. 2001. 2001). of which 15 to 50% are estimated to be reef-associated species (Berg et al. Coral reefs are mainly found in Eastern Malaysia around off-shore islands. where an estimated 90% of poor people live (ADB. 2001). The majority of the population live on the coast. and a more recent report suggests that the last official figure of poverty incidence (Table 5).. with some reefs found around Hainan Island in the mouth of the Gulf of Tonkin and reefs off the coastline of Hong Kong and Taiwan and its offshore islands (Spalding et al. 2002). but coral reefs are known to occur off the mainland coast and surround the offshore islands (Spalding et al. 80% of Indonesia’s fisheries production has been estimated to originate from small-scale production in near-shore waters (UNEP. Near-shore fisheries have been estimated to contribute to 60% of total landings in 2000 (NARA. ranking as a low Medium Human Development country.

White and Cruz-Trinidad. 1996. Coral reef areas are encountered on all coasts and are particularly extensive around the offshore islands on the west coast in the Andaman Sea. and are also located offshore on the banks and atolls of the Nicaraguan Rise (Spalding et al. 2002). A large proportion of the population live in coastal areas and coral reefs are reported to surround most of the offshore islands. Singapore and Brunei Both Singapore and Brunei rank among the High Human Development countries of the world (UNDP. 2002a). 2001).than 75% of the total annual fish production and are considered one of the most important components in Myanmar’s economy. Reef products. A third of the population of Colombia lives in coastal areas.. which in 1998 were estimated to involve nearly 2000 fishers (Spalding et al. These include the large densely populated island of San Andres. Both are relatively small and well-developed countries. Thailand Thailand ranks as an upper-ranking Medium Development country. 2001). with an estimated 8 million Colombians with incomes below a nutritionally defined subsistence level. 2001). with some fringing reefs off the east mainland coast and offshore in the Gulf of Tonkin and Ha Long Bay (Spalding et al. In some areas. Belize ranks just below Mexico as an upper Medium Human Development country. It has been estimated that more than one million small-scale fishers depend directly on reef fisheries for their livelihood and coral reefs contribute significantly to protein supplies. About 33% of the population. 1999b). One of the longest barrier reef systems in the Caribbean is found bordering Belize’s shallow shelf and three large coral atolls are located further offshore (Spalding et al. 1998). with fish providing a major source of protein and the fishery providing employment and livelihoods for a large portion of the population (FAO. 2001). Coral reefs located in rural areas are the focus for small-scale fisheries and provide important sources of income and food. 2000b).. 2002). falling in between Malaysia and Philippines in terms of human development indices (UNDP. Reef fisheries constitute 10% of the total fish production in the Philippines and as much as 70% of the total harvest on some small islands (Cesar. respectively). WESTERN CARIBBEAN Belize According to the UNDP Human Development Indices (2002). in a country where more than 50% of animal protein is derived from marine fisheries and aquaculture (White and Cruz-Trinidad. 2001b).. Most of the coral reefs in Costa Rica are found on its Pacific coast. Costa Rica Although Costa Rica is among one of the High Human Development countries (UNDP. 2001). Marine fishery activities play an important socio-economic role in Thailand. 2001). predominantly on the Caribbean coast. 2002). remain below the poverty line (WB. Vietnam Vietnam ranks alongside Indonesia as a lower-ranking Medium Human Development country (UNDP. where the interaction of poverty and reefs is likely to be minimal. Philippines The Philippine Archipelago is an upper ranking Medium Human Development country (UNDP. where poverty is largely associated with rural areas and natural resource based livelihoods. and the majority of these people living in rural areas (WB.. where subsistence fishing on the surrounding reefs provide an important source of food (Spalding et al. which are bordered by the third largest expanse of coral reef associated with a single nation (Spalding et al. 2002). 2002). Cayman Islands The Cayman Islands are overseas territories of the UK and an offshore financial centre. Colombia Colombia ranks as an upper Medium Human Development country (UNDP.7 Most of the population lives in coastal areas. where the interaction of poverty and reefs is likely to be minimal if existent. such as lobsters and Queen Conch are a major component of the marine fisheries. coastal and reef-based tourism activities are replacing small-scale fisheries (Sudara and Yeemin.. with most of the poor living in rural areas (WB. primarily in the southern rural districts of Toledo and Cayo. nearly 7% of the population remains below the poverty line (Table 6). with a third of the population living on less than 1 US$ a day. 2002c). 2002). Marine fisheries are predominantly small-scale and are estimated to provide the primary source of household income for 8 million people and contribute to part of the income and subsistence of a further 12 million people (FAO. 1998. 1997). home to 80 000 people. Coral reefs are found bordering approximately 9% of the mainland coast.. with only 66 . 1997). contributing to 79% of the total fisheries production in 1996 and providing the primary accessible source of protein for most people (FAO.

which are home to the third largest extent of coral reefs among countries in the Wider Caribbean. Cayos Cochinos. it is estimated that Cuba ranks as one of the upper Medium Human Development countries (UNDP. 2001).. 1994b). which stretches to the Colombian border (Spalding et al. Small-scale fisheries constitute about half of the total fishery activities in the country and provide an important source of fish for the national market (FAO. 2000). 2000a)). with extensive areas on the eastern coast associated with the San Blas Archipelago. Most of the poor live in rural areas and are engaged in agricultural activities or in agriculturerelated services (WB. 2001). 2002). Honduras In 1998 Honduras ranked among the lowest-income countries in the western hemisphere (WB. however. Reef fisheries play an important role in the Cuban economy and as a source of protein. Natural resources provide the main economic opportunities to rural households (ODN. 2002). 2001). or about 2 million people. 2001). 2001). 1999a) and is currently among the lower ranking Medium Human Development countries in the world (UNDP. particularly in rural and indigenous areas (Lindert. Cuba Although insufficient information exists on the level of poverty in Cuba. 1996a). socially and nutritionally for coastal people.. without a reliable supply of basic foodstuffs or clean water (WB. and are reported to have heavily exploited reef resources. A high percentage of men and women on the coast depend on fishing as a source of household income and as the main source of protein. 2002a). and 10 million living less than $1 per day. frequently undertaken in combination with agriculture (FAO. 2002). Coral reefs are found on both the Caribbean and Pacific coasts. Small-scale fishing in near-shore waters is associated with both the Pacific and Caribbean coasts and is important economically.. Cuba is the second largest area of coral reef in the Wider Caribbean. Marine fisheries are predominantly small-scale (97% of registered fishing boats are small boats (FAO.. 1999). where the poorest households typically comprise around 25% of the rural population and 10–35% of the urban population (ODN. particularly in areas in the Gulf of Mexico (Spalding et al. 1999b). notably at the Pedro and Morant Cays (Spalding et al. however. living in poverty and 19% living in extreme poverty (WB. Nicaragua Ranking close to Honduras in terms of Human Development (Table 6). Small-scale fisheries targeting near-shore resources are found on both coasts. Jamaica Jamaica represents a middle-ranking Medium Human Development country (UNDP. where small-scale fisheries represents one of the principle economic activities. Nicaragua remains among the poorest countries in the western hemisphere. 2002).. 67 . the average Cuban’s standard of living remains at a low level compared with 1990 (CIA. over one million people (37% of the population) live below the poverty line and over half a million (19% of the population) live in extreme poverty. Coral reefs surround much of the coastline and are also found on the nine offshore banks. 2001). 2002). Mosquitia Cays and Banks and the remote Swan Islands. with the most extensive reef development occurring around the Yucatan peninsula on the Caribbean coast (Spalding et al. Nearly 70% of the population lives in coastal areas. despite its relatively high income per capita.. 1996b). with reefs bordering most of the Cuban shelf (Spalding et al.limited reef areas off the Caribbean coast (Spalding et al. Smallscale fishers are found all along the Caribbean coast and in 1998 numbered 2000 in the Mosquitia area alone (FAO. with a large majority of activities (95%) occurring on the Pacific coast. 2002b). 2002). where coral reefs are found surrounding the offshore Bay Islands. Coral reefs are found both on the Pacific and Caribbean coasts. frequently being mixed with agricultural activities on the Caribbean coast (FAO. with an estimated 45 million Mexicans living on less than $2 per day. Coral reefs are found along the entire coastline and are well developed around offshore islands and cays (Spalding et al. Nearly one-third of Mexico’s population live in coastal areas. engaging an estimated 750 fishers along the Caribbean coast and a further 6700 fishers on the Pacific coast.. 2001). with approximately 50% of the population. where 80% of the country’s population is located (FAO. 2000) and near-shore resources and offshore cays were estimated in 1990 to support the livelihoods of 18 739 smallscale fishers. Small-scale fisheries dominate the Costa Rican marine fisheries. 2002b).8 Mexico Mexico ranks as an upper Medium Human Development country (UNDP. 2002b). Panama Panama ranks alongside Mexico as a upper ranking Medium Human Development country (UNDP.

NOTES 1 The term ‘reef ’ is used throughout the document in the context of coral reefs and is not to be confused with any other reef formations.org 6 For more information on the GCRMN South Asia node activities see the website: http://ioc.html 7 From World Bank country information http://www. org/ 8 Information from Fisheries Division. 2 Data from the World Resources Institute (WRI).com/jamaica-fisheries/ main.panda.org/gcrmn/index. calculated from 1995 United Nations Population Division totals for each coral reef country 3 BBC news ‘Islands disappear under rising seas’ Monday 14 June 1999 4 World Resources Institute (WRI). Jamaica website: http://caricom-fisheries.unesco.worldbank. 1999 5 WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature http://www. Ministry of Agriculture.html 68 .

Fishery country profile – Thailand. Dalzell P. Burke L. World Resources Institute. —— 2002. —— 2000b. Rome (12). Coral reef valuation: a rapid socioeconomic assessment of fishing. Rome (11). Ohman MC. Benzaken D. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. United Nations Environment Programme (56). Community policing in the Portland Bight Protected Area. Coastal fisheries of the South Pacific Islands. Rome (10). —— 2000c. Poverty and aquatic biodiversity. Spalding MD. Berg H. Conflict and regulation in the fisheries of the Coromandel coast. Chennai (87). 2001. MD (163). World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Linden O. India (394). and hotel operations in the Montego Bay Marine Park. 2001. Adams TJH. 1982. Mitchell B. —— 1999c. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 14: 34–35. —— 2001b. Rome (9). Jamaica. Espeut P. Asian Development Outlook. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Fisheries country profile – Costa Rica. The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change on Coastal Areas and Marine Resources: Report of the Coastal Areas and Marine Resources Sector Team. McManus J. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd. Sweden (244). Burke L.) Living off biodiversity: exploring livelihoods and biodiversity issues in natural resources management. Gustavson KR. Bay of Bengal Programme (65). Three fishing villages in Tamil Nadu. Ambio 27: 627–634. Customary marine tenure systems and sustainable fisheries management in Papua New Guinea. Ekaratne SUK. Troeng S. US National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. Oxford University Press. South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries 2: 373–384. Sustainable development of coastal fisheries in the Pacific Islands region. Fishery country profile – Myanmar. Smith G. New York. Reefs at risk in Southeast Asia. 1995 Research on fisheries in the Pacific Islands region. CIA. —— 1996b. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. Johannes RE. New Approaches to Participation in Fisheries Research. India. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. State of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Workshop. Fishery country profile – Mexico. 481–491. InterCoast Network: International Newsletter of Coastal Management 34: 14–15. Oxford University Press. A long way together: the recognition of indigenous interests in the management of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Campbell J. Wiltshire B. South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries 2: 87–166. Boesch DF. Integrated Coastal and Marine Area Management Project. Campbell J.REFERENCES REFERENCES Adams TJH. 1999. International Institute for Environment and Development. Kalmar. Horrill CJ. New Delhi. Communities protecting coastal resources: Rekawa Lagoon. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. Elliot G. —— 1999b. 1997. Bettencourt S. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Salagrama V. Ambio 24: 358–365. Number of Fishers 1970–1996 – Revision 1. A socioeconomic study with special reference to the role and status of women. The Jamaica Coral Reef Action Plan and the Portland Bight Sustainable Development Area. 2002. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2000. Australian Institute of Marine Science (251). Tanzania: a management dilemma. Davenport J. London. Beardmore JA. Italy. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. CORDIO. 2000.) Communities and conservation: natural resource management in South and Central Asia. Asafu-Adjaye J. Dalzell P. Darwall WRT. Townsley P. Environmental economics of coral reef destruction in Sri Lanka. Stanwell-Smith D. 1995. Rome (16). Central Intelligence Agency. Scavia D. Sulawesi. Coastal Management 29: 295–316. 2001. NOAA's Coastal Oceans Program. —— 2002. World Resources Institute (72). Jamaica and an analysis of reef management implications. 1998. Fishery country profile – Nicaragua. New York. World Bank (95). 1997. 2001. 1998. Bell L. Lee D. Dalzell P. 1996. In: Saunders J (ed. Fishery country profile – Tanzania. Adams TJH. South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries 2: 19. —— 2001c. Dulvy NK. Rome (9). 69 . Sage Publications Pvt Ltd. Sustainability and management of reef fisheries in the Pacific Islands. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Coral mining at Mafia Island. Selig E. —— 2000. Fishery Information Data and Statistics Unit. Bunce LL. Silver Spring. Bavinck M. Fishery country profile – Cambodia. 2000. 2000. Collected Essays on the Economics of Coral Reefs. US Global Change Research Program. Asian Development Outlook. 965: 56. FAO Fisheries Circular no. Economic analysis of Indonesian coral reefs. 1996a. Bunce LL. Rome (8). 191–229. 2000. Fishery country profile – Viet Nam. watersports. Wismer S. World Bank. International Journal of Social Economics 27: 917–926. Reefs at risk. Pomeroy RS. Williams R. 2000. Polunin NVC. Drewes E. Sri Lanka. Spalding MD. 2002. New Delhi. Rome (12). 1995. Community participation in marine protected area management: Wakatobi National Park. Rome. DOD. The World Factbook 2002. Marine resource management. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. ADB. Rome (9). Indonesia. Bryant D. Rome. Cesar H. Richards A. —— 2001a. Manan A. FAO. Walgama RS. Proceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium 2: 2027–2032. In: Taneja B (ed. —— 1999a. 1995. Pollnac RB. Talati C. 2002. 2001. Socio-economic manual for coral reef management. 1998. 1998. Field JC. 471–495. Decision Analysis Series Number 21. Fishery country profile – Kenya. —— 2000a. Resources Informations Systems for Gulf of Mannar (India). USA.

—— 2002a. Fishery country profile – Honduras. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome (15). —— 2002b. Fishery country profile – Panama. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome (12). Foale S. 1998. What's in a name? An analysis of the West Nggela (Solomon Islands) fish taxonomy. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 9: 3–6. Foell J, Harrison E, Stirrat RL. 1999. Participatory approaches to natural resource management – The case of coastal zone management in the Puttalam District, Sri Lanka. DFID and the University of Sussex. FRDC. 2001. Australia's Fishing Industry: traditional sector. Fisheries Research and Development Cooperation. Gabrie C, Vasseur P, Randriamiarana H, Maharavo J, Mara E. 2000. The coral reefs of Madagascar. In: Obura DO (ed.) Coral Reefs of the Indian Ocean: Their Ecology and Conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 411–444. Gibbings R. 1949. Over the reefs. Readers Union with JM Dent and Sons, London, UK (240). Gina-Whewell L. 1992. Roviana women in traditional fishing. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 1: 12–13. Glaesel H. 2000. Community-level marine resource management and the spirit realm in coastal Kenya. Women in Natural Resources 21: 35–42. Green EP, Shirley F. 1999. The global trade in coral. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK (70). Hajra D. 1970. Marine fisherfolk of Gujarat: a preliminary exploration. In: Sinha SC (ed.) Research programmes on cultural anthropology and allied disciplines. Anthropological Survey of India, Calcutta, India, 55–73. Hatziolos M. 1997. Coral reefs and the world bank. People and the Planet 6: 30–31. Heel CV. 1986. Nutrition and small-scale fisheries in India. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome (64). Hoegh-Guldberg O. 1999. Climate change, coral bleacing and the future of the world’s coral reefs. Marine Freshwater Research 50: 839-866 Hogbin I. 1973. Anthropology in Papua New Guinea. Melbourne University Press (243). Hoon V. 2003. A case study from Lakshadweep. In: Whittingham E, Campbell J, Townsley P (eds) Poverty and Reefs: Volume 2 Case Studies. For DFID, IMM and IOC-UNESCO by UNESCO, Paris, 187–226 Hviding E. 1994. Community-based management of coral reef resource systems: South Pacific experiences. The management of coral reef resource systems: 82–84. ICRAN. 2002. People and Reefs: a partnership for prosperity. International Coral Reef Action Network (4). ICRI. 2002a. The Cancun Declaration. The ICRI Regional Workshop for the Tropical Americas: Improving reef condition through strategic partnership 12–14 June 2002, 3. —— 2002b. Deciding on priorities to protect and manage the world's coral reefs. International Coral Reef Initiative (9). Innes J. 1996. Developing the linkages. Indigenous involvement in the management of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Reef Research 6: 1–4. IPCC. 2001. Summary for policymakers. Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. A report of Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (17).

Jazairy I, Alamgir M, Panuccio T. 1992. The state of world rural poverty: an inquiry into its causes and consequences. International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome, Italy (514). Jennings S, Marshall SS, Cuet P, Naim O. 2000. The Seychelles. In: Obura DO (ed.) Coral Reefs of the Indian Ocean. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 383–410. Jimmy RA. 1995. Case study: the application of traditional management on Trochus fishery in Vanuatu. South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries 2: 221–224. Johannes RE. 1978. Traditional marine conservation methods in Oceania and their demise. Annual Review of Ecological Systems 9: 349–364. —— 1981. Words of the lagoon. Fishing and marine lore in the Palau district of Micronesia. University of California Press, London, England (207). —— 1982. Implications of traditional marine resource use for coastal fisheries development in Papua New Guinea. Institute of Applied Social Economic Research 16: 239–249. —— 1989. Managing small-scale fisheries in Oceania: unusual constraints and opportunities. Economics of fishery management in the Pacific Island region, 85–93. —— 1994. The science of Pacific Island peoples and marine resource management. Proceedings of the Conference on the Science of the Pacific Island Peoples. —— 1999. Breaking environmental laws. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 6: 1–2. Johannes RE, Ruddle K, Hviding E. 1991. The value today of traditional management and knowledge of coastal marine resources in Oceania. South Pacific Commission's Twenty-third Regional Technical Meeting on Fisheries. Katupotha J. 1995. Public awareness: key to conservation of mangrove and coral reef ecosystems in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Journal of Geography 1: 15–28. Kenchington R. 2000. Fisheries Management and Marine Protected Areas – A 2000 Perspective. InterCoast Network: International Newsletter of Coastal Management 37: 4–5. Kristensen JD. 1990. Utilisation of shark in Tamil Nadu, India and Sri Lanka. Bay of Bengal Programme (10). Lindert K. 1999. Panama Poverty Report 1999. World Bank Group (48). Lokani P. 1995. An oral account of overfishing and habitat destruction at Pororan Island, Papua New Guinea. South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries 1: 251–263. Luhikula G. 1999. Community participatory approach pays dividends in fight against dynamite fishing. InterCoast Network: International Newsletter of Coastal Management 34: 10–11. McAllister DE. 1988. Environmental, economic and social costs of coral reef destruction in the Philippines. Galaxea 7: 161–178. McClanahan TR, Glaesel H, Rubens J, Kiambo R. 1998. The effects of traditional fisheries management on fisheries yield and the coral reef ecosystem of southern Kenya. Oceanographic Literature Review 45: 561–562. McGoodwin JR. 2001. Understanding the cultures of fishing communities: a key to fisheries management and food security. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 401: 287. MIMRA. 1995. Country statement – Marshall Islands. South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries 1: 127–129. Moberg F, Folke C. 1999. Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. Ecological Economics 29: 215–233.

70

Moffat DM, Ngoile MN, Linden O, Francis J. 1998. The reality of the stomach: coastal management at the local level in Eastern Africa. Ambio 27: 590–598. MRAG. 1999. Vanuatu – country report. The Performance of Customary Marine Tenure in the Managament of Community Fishery Resources in Melanesia, 2a: 64. Muhando C. 1999. Assessment of the extent of damage, socioeconomic effects, mitigation and recovery in Tanzania. In: Sporrong N (ed). Status report and project presentations 1999. CORDIO, SAREC Marine Science Program, Department of Zoology, Stockholm, Sweden. Mukherjee B. 1968. The Noliya of Puri and their sea-fishing organisation. Bulletin of the Anthropological Survey of India XVII: 301–315. Naim O, Cuet P, Mangar V. 2000. The Mascarene Islands. In: Obura DO (ed.) Coral Reefs of the Indian Ocean. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 353–381. NARA. 2001. Sri Lanka Fisheries Year Book 2000. Socio-economic and Market Research Division, National Aquatic Resources Research & Development Agency, Colombo. NBS. 2002. Household Budget Survey 2000/01. National Bureau of Statistics, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (218). Nichols PV. 1993. Sharks. In: Hill L (ed.) Nearshore marine resources of the South Pacific. IPS, Suva, 285–327. Obura DO, Wells S, Church J, Horrill CJ. 2002. Monitoring of fish and fish catches by local fishermen in Kenya and Tanzania. Marine Freshwater Research 53: 215–222. ODN. 2000. Consultations with the poor – country report, Jamaica. Oneworld Development Network, Sussex, UK (89). Ohman MC, Rajasuriya A, Linden O. 1993. Human disturbances on coral reefs in Sri Lanka: a case study. Ambio 22: 474–480. Opnai LJ, Aitsi L. 1995. Summary of coastal fisheries development and management problems in Papua New Guinea and priorities for action. South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries 1: 135–145. Pasisi B. 1995. Country statement – Niue Island. South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries 1: 117–121. Perea N. 2002. Alternative Livelihood through Income Diversification: as management options for sustainable coral reef and associated ecosystem management in Sri Lanka. South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme (58). Pet-Soede L, Venkataraman K, Rajan PT. 2000. Case 1: An assessment of the socio-economic importance of reef fisheries in India. In: RA (ed.) Assessment of the socio-economic impacts of the 1998 coral reef bleaching in the Indian Ocean. Resource Analysis, Institute for Environmental Studies, The Netherlands, 67–78. Pilcher N, Krupp F. 2000. The status of coral reefs in Somalia. In: Wilkinson C (ed.). Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia. Pollnac RB. 1998. Rapid assessment of management parameters for coral reefs. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island (199). Pomeroy RS. 1994. Management options for small scale fisheries. The management of coral reef resource systems 78–81. Rajendran I, Nambiar K, Shridar R. 1992. Marine fish marketing in Tamil Nadu. Bay of Bengal Programme (47). Rawlinson N. 1995. Customary ownership of sea areas and resources with respect to the management fo baitfisheries in Solomon Islands and Fiji. South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries

Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries 2: 653–657. Raychaudhuri B. 1980. The moon and net: study of a transient community of fishermen at Jambudwip. Anthroplogical Survey of India, Calcutta, India (274). Rengasamy S, Devavaram J, Prasad R, Arunodaya E. 2003. A Case study from the Gulf of Mannar. In: Whittingham E, Campbell J, Townsley P (eds) Poverty and Reefs: Volume 2 Case Studies. For DFID, IMM and IOC-UNESCO by UNESCO, Paris, 113–146. Risk MJ, Sluka R. 2000. The Maldives: A nation of atolls. In: Obura DO (ed.) Coral Reefs of the Indian Ocean. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 325–351. Rosenberg E, Ben-Haim Y. 2002. Microbial diseases of coral and global warming. Environmental Microbiology 4: 318–326. Rubens J. 1996. An analysis of the benefits and costs of marine reserve regulations at Diani, Kenya. Department of Marine Science and Coastal Management. University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK (156). Ruddle K. 1993. External forces and change in traditional communitybased fishery management systems in the Asia-Pacific region. Maritime Anthrological Studies 6: 1–37. —— 1996. Back to first 'design principles': the issue of clearly defined boundaries. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 6: 4–12. —— 1998. The context of policy design for existing communitybased fisheries management systems in the Pacific Islands. Ocean and Coastal Management 40: 105–126. Ruddle K, Hviding E, Johannes RE. 1992. Marine resources management in the context of customary tenure. Marine Resource Economics 7: 249–273. Savina GC, White AT. 1986. Reef fish yields and nonreef catch of Pamilacan Island, Bohol, Philippines. The First Asia Fisheries Forum 497–500. Schug DM. 1995. The marine realm and the Papua New Guinean inhabitants of the Torres Strait. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 5: 16–23. Sheppard CRC. 2002. Probabilities of repeat episodes of the 1998 mortality in the Indian Ocean. Reef Conservation UK Annual Meeting December 2002, Abstract. Sievert RF, Diamante-Fabunan DAD. 1999. Local participation in fisheries law enforcement. InterCoast Network: International Newsletter of Coastal Management 34: 16–17. Singh A, Andrews HV. 2003. A case study from South Andaman Island. In: Whittingham E, Campbell J, Townsley P (eds) Poverty and Reefs: Volume 2 Case Studies. For DFID, IMM and IOCUNESCO by UNESCO, Paris, 147–186. Sone S, Lotoahea T. 1995. Ocean culture of giant clams in Tonga. South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries 1. Spalding MD, Ravilious C, Green EP. 2001. World atlas of coral reefs. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, University of California Press, Berkeley, USA (424). Stirrat RL. 1988. On the beach. Fishermen, fishwives and fishtraders in post-colonial Lanka. Hindustan Publishing Corporation, Delhi, India (170). Stoffle RW. 2001. When fish is water: food security and fish in a coastal community in the Dominican Republic. In: McGoodwin JR (ed.) Understanding the Cultures of Fishing Communities: A Key to Fisheries Management and Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 219–245.

71

Sudara S, Yeemin T. 1997. Status of Coral Reefs in Thailand. In: Birkeland C (ed.) Status of Coral Reefs in the Pacific. Sea Grant College Program, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii, 135–144. Talbot F, Wilkinson C. 2001. Coral reefs, mangroves and seagrasses: a sourcebook for managers. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia (193). Teiwaki R. 1988. Management of marine resources in Kiribati. University of the South Pacific (239). Teulieres MH. 1992. Traditional marine resource management in the north of New Caledonia. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 1: 8–11. Thorburn CC. 2000. Changing customary marine resource management practice and institutions: the case of Sasi Lola in the Kei Islands, Indonesia. World Development 28: 1461–1479. —— 2001. The house that poison built: customary marine property rights and the live food fish trade in the Kei Islands, Southeast Maluku. Development and Change 32: 151–180. Tobisson E, Andersson J, Ngazi Z, Rydberg L, Cederlof U. 1998. Tides, monsoons and seabed: local knowledge and practice in Chawaka Bay, Zanzibar. Ambio 27: 677–685. TRAFFIC. 2001. Stormy seas for marine invertebrates – trade in sea cucumbers, seashells, and lobsters in Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Nairobi, Kenya (70). Tuara PN. 1995. The role of women in the management of Pacific Island inshore fisheries. South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries 2: 227–232. Udagawa K, Kava V, Fa'Anunu U. 1995. Lobster fishery in the Tongatapu Island group, Tonga: its biology and the effect of new fishery regulation. South Pacific Commission and Forum Fisheries Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries 1: 323–334. UNDP. 2002. Human Development Report 2002. United Nations Development Programme (292). UNEP. 1996. Report on the workshop on the application of methodologies for valuation of environmental and natural resources with particular reference to oceans and coastal areas. United Nations Environment Programme, Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia (66). UNESCO. 2001. Indigenous people and parks. The Surin Islands Project. UNESCO, Paris (63). Veitayaki J. 1994. The contemporary applicability of traditional fisheries management in the South Pacific. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 3: 14–17. Wallevik HB, Jiddawi N. 1999. Impacts of tourism on the activities of the women of the southeast coast of Unguja, Zanzibar. Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference on Advances in Marine Science in Tanzania, 535–550. WB. 1994a. Comoros – Poverty and growth in a traditional small island society. World Bank Poverty Net Library. —— 1994b. Honduras Country Economic Memorandum/Poverty Assessment. Latin American and the Caribbean Region, World Bank (215).

—— 1994c. Seychelles – Poverty in paradise. World Bank PovertyNet Library (2). —— 1995. Kenya poverty assessment. Eastern Africa Department, World Bank (194). —— 1996. Madagascar Poverty Assessment. Central Africa and Indian Ocena Deparment, World Bank (58). —— 1997. Costa rica – Identifying the social needs of the poor: an update. World Bank Poverty Net Library. —— 1999a. Country brief – Honduras. World Bank Group. —— 1999b. Country profile – Nicaragua. World Bank Group. —— 2002a. Country brief – Colombia. —— 2002b. Country brief – Mexico. The World Bank Group. —— 2002c. Country Profile – Belize. World Bank Group. Wells S. 2000. Emerging Trends in Reef Management: Eastern Africa. InterCoast Network: International Newsletter of Coastal Management 37: 8–9 and 30. Westmacott S, Cesar H, Pet-Soede L, Linden O. 2000. Coral bleaching in the Indian Ocean: socio-economic assessment of effects. In: Cesar H (ed.) Collected Essays on the Economics of Coral Reefs. CORDIO, Kalmar, Sweden, 94–106. White AT. 1994. Collaborative and community-based management of coral reefs: lessons from experience. Kumarian Press, Inc., Conneticut, USA (129). White AT, Cruz-Trinidad A. 1998. The Values of Philippines Coastal Resources: Why Protection and Management are Critical. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines (96). White AT, Deguit E. 2000. Philippine Community-Based Coastal Management: Evolution and Challenge. InterCoast Network: International Newsletter of Coastal Management 37: 6–7 and 31. White AT, Rajasuriya A. 1995. South Asian regional report on the issues and activities associated with coral reefs and related ecosystems. SACEP (34). Wilkinson C (ed.). 2000. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2000. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia. Wilson J, Muchave P, Garrett A. 2003. A Case study from the Mozambique. In: Whittingham E, Campbell J, Townsley P (eds) Poverty and Reefs: Volume 2 Case Studies. For DFID, IMM and IOC-UNESCO by UNESCO, Paris, 73–111. Woodley JD. 1994. Facilitating change in artisanal fishery practice at Discovery Bay, Jamaica. The management of coral reef resource systems: 75–78. Worsley P. 1997. Knowledges. What different peoples make of the world. Profile Books, London, England (407). Wright HO. 1994. Octopus fishing is women's work. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 3: 20. Young MW. 1979. The ethnography of Malinowski. The Trobriand Islands 1915–18. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, Boston and Henley (254). Zuhair M. 1998. Conservation by local communities in the Maldives. In: Taneja B (ed.) Communities and conservation: natural resource management in South and Central Asia. Sage Publications Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, India, 102–116.

72

POVERTY AND REEFS
VOLUME 2 CASE STUDIES

IMM Ltd

Edited by Emma Whittingham, Jock Campbell and Philip Townsley

IMM Ltd

IMM Ltd Innovation Centre Rennes Drive Exeter University Campus Exeter EX4 4RN United Kingdom http://www.ex.ac.uk/imm

DFID Department for International Development 1 Palace Street London SW1E 5HE United Kingdom http://www.dfid.gov.uk/

IOC/UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO 1 Rue Miollis 75732 Paris Cedex 15 France http://www.ioc.unesco.org

Kusi Limitada Rua Padre António Vieira 37 Caixa Postal 2873 Maputo Moçambique http://homepage.mac.com/kusimoz/kusi.html

IDPPE Instituto Nacional de Desenvolvimento da Pesca de Pequena Escala Av. Marginal Parcela 141/8 Caixa Postal 2473 Maputo Moçambique

SPEECH The Society for People’s Education and Economic Change 2/1060 Manoranjitham Street Ezhil Nagar Madurai 625 014 India http://www.speechtn.org/

ANET The Andaman & Nicobar Islands Environment Team Centre for Island Ecology Post Bag- 1 Junglighat Post Office Port Blair 744 103 Andaman Islands India

CARESS The Centre for Action Research on Environment, Science & Society 160 Sivananda Road Gillnagar ext 2 Choolaimedu Chennai 600094 India

POVERTY AND REEFS VOLUME 2: CASE STUDIES Edited by Emma Whittingham Jock Campbell Philip Townsley i .

France.. The views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID. Volume 2: Case Studies.” Printed and distributed free by: Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO 1. Fax: +33 1 45 68 58 12 Website: http://ioc. Exeter. or concerning the elimination of the frontiers of any country or territory. Poverty and Reefs. ii . P. J. Volume 1: Global Overview. COPYRIGHT All rights reserved.org. This document is an output from a project funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing countries. UK Project Management by Swales & Willis. 260pp.org DISCLAIMER The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariats of UNESCO and IOC concerning the legal status of any country or territory.unesco. provided that any reproduction of data be accompanied by an acknowledgement of IMM as the source (© IMM). Email: IOCMailService@unesco. and Townsley. DFID–IMM–IOC/UNESCO. This does not apply to the pages and images with explicitly reserved reproduction right: © followed by the source and the year of first circulation. Poverty and Reefs. Rue Miollis. (2003). Exeter. or its authorities. UK Typeset by Exe Valley Dataset Ltd.© 2003 IMM Ltd. Reference number: IOC/UNESCO/INF-1188. Reproduction of the latter requires prior authorization from the author. This information may be freely used and copied for educational and other non-commercial purposes. Campbell. Citation: “Whittingham. 260pp. E. 75015 Paris. Tel: +33 1 45 68 10 10. Exeter. UK Printed in France.

CONTENTS
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii A CASE STUDY FROM MOZAMBIQUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 A CASE STUDY FROM THE GULF OF MANNAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 A CASE STUDY FROM SOUTH ANDAMAN ISLAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 A CASE STUDY FROM LAKSHADWEEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

iii

Cover photo credits
Volume 2 A A B B A A C D A C E F G G I H H G I

A – Traditional boats and nets, Gulf of Mannar, India, Emma Whittingham, IMM Ltd B – Coconut fencing, Mozambique, James Wilson, Kusi Lda C – The shore line, Mozambique, James Wilson, Kusi Lda D – Fisherwoman, South Andaman Island, James Wilson, Kusi Lda E – Women reef gleaning, Lakshadweep Islands, Vineeta Hoon, CARESS F – Pole and line fishing, Lakshadweep Islands, Vineeta Hoon, CARESS G – Cast net fishing, Gulf of Mannar, India, Emma Whittingham, IMM Ltd H – Sorting the crab catch, Gulf of Mannar, India, Emma Whittingham, IMM Ltd I – Traditional boats, South Andaman Island, James Wilson, Kusi Lda

iv

CONTENTS TO THE MOZAMBIQUE CASE STUDY
FIGURES, TABLES AND BOXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 BACKGROUND TO THE MOZAMBIQUE CASE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 1 STUDY AREA CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Social setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Ecological and geophysical setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Political and organisational setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Economic setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 External factors controlling livelihood opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMMUNITY CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Maueia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Darumba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Messano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POOR STAKEHOLDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Overview of poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Maueia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Darumba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Messano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REEF LIVELIHOODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Direct Influencing factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Indirect Influencing factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHANGE, CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Status of natural resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 77 78 79 79 80 81 81 84 87 90 93 93 93 94 94 95 95 99 102 104 104 104 104

2

3

4

5

6 7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 REFERENCES AND NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

ANNEX 1 VARIATIONS TO FIELD METHODOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 ANNEX 2 DIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES EXPLOITED FROM REEF AND NEAR-SHORE COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS . . . . . . 111

v

CONTENTS TO THE GULF OF MANNAR CASE STUDY
FIGURES, TABLES AND BOXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 BACKGROUND TO THE GULF OF MANNAR CASE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 1 STUDY AREA CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Social setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Ecological and geophysical setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Economic setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Administrative setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 External factors controlling livelihood opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMMUNITY CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Geographical, ecological, social and economic setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Administrative setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POOR STAKEHOLDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Overview of poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Indiranagar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Idinthakalpudur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Thavukadu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REEF LIVELIHOODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Direct influencing factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Indirect influencing factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 117 119 120 121 121 122 122 126 126 127 127 128 128 128 129 129 134 136

2

3

4

5

CHANGES, CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 5.1 Positive outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 5.2 Negative outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 REFERENCES AND NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

6 7

ANNEX 1 OVERVIEW OF RLA METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 ANNEX 2 BIODIVERSITY OF LOCALLY EXPLOITED SPECIES IN THE THREE STUDY VILLAGES IN THE GULF OF MANNAR . . . . 146

vi

CONTENTS TO THE SOUTH ANDAMAN CASE STUDY
FIGURES, TABLES AND BOXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 BACKGROUND TO THE SOUTH ANDAMAN CASE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 1 STUDY AREA CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Social setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Ecological and geophysical setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Economic setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Administrative setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMMUNITY CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Guptapara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Panighat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Junglighat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 External factors controlling livelihood opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POOR STAKEHOLDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Overview of poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Guptapara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Panighat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Junglighat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REEF LIVELIHOODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Direct influencing factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Indirect influencing factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHANGES, CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Fisheries Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 151 153 154 156 158 158 161 162 164 164 166 166 166 167 167 168 168 171 173 175 176 177 177

2

3

4

5

6 7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 REFERENCES AND NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

ANNEX 1 VARIATIONS TO FIELD METHODOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 ANNEX 2 HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

vii

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Poor stakeholders on Agatti Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLES AND BOXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Social setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Administrative setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Ecological and economic setting . . . . . . . . . . 208 208 211 214 4 5 CHANGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 1 STUDY AREA CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . 204 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Factors controlling livelihood opportunities . . . . .1 Overview of poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FISHING GROUNDS AND FISHING TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . 191 191 193 195 196 197 197 200 202 203 203 2 3 POOR STAKEHOLDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Economic setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMMUNITY CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Geographical and social setting . . . . . . . . . . 204 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 viii . . .3 Indirect influencing factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Declining livelihood options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . .2 Direct influencing factors . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 REEF LIVELIHOODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CONTENTS TO THE LAKSHADWEEP CASE STUDY FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . 222 6 7 ANNEX 1 FOLK TAXONOMY WITH REFERENCE TO FISHES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Ecological and geophysical setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 BACKGROUND TO THE LAKSHADWEEP CASE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES . . . . . . . . . .1 Increasing livelihood options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . .1 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Administrative setting . . . . . . . . 220 REFERENCES AND NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURES. P. ramosus Figure 13 Fresh and dried seaweed Figure 14 Messano beach panorama Figure 15 Intertidal collection in Maueia Figure 16 Gastropod shells and coral rubble in house construction in Messano Figure 17 Women harvesting seaweed at Messano Figure 18 Pre-made household cards Figure 19 Benefit and expenditure data collection Figures to Case Study 2 Figure 1 Location of study area Figure 2 Location of study villages Figure 3 Fishing in the lagoon inside the reef Figure 4 Lime kilns in operation inland from the coast at Keelakari Figure 5 Mechanised country boats Figure 6 Crab catch for export. trapezium and C. TABLES AND BOXES FIGURES Figures to Case Study 1 Figure 1 Cabo Delgado province Figure 2 Infant mortality per 100 (1997) Figure 3 Maueia land map Figure 4 Maueia marine chart Figure 5 Commonly harvested intertidal mollusc. Neritidae undata Figure 6 Maueia beach panorama at low tide Figure 7 Messano and Darumba land map Figure 8 Messano and Darumba marine chart Figure 9 Commonly harvested intertidal mollusc. Idinthakalpudur Figure 7 Village elder with seaweed scraping tool Figure 8 A woman cleaning crab nets in Idinthakalpudur Figures to Case Study 3 Figure 1 Location of Andaman and Nicobar Islands Figure 2 Felled timber. Pteriidae Figure 10 Commonly harvested intertidal molluscs. Arcidae Figure 11 A pile of discarded molluscs shells outside a house in Messano Figure 12 Commonly harvested molluscs. South Andaman Island Figure 3 Tarring the bottom of a traditional mechanised craft or Dhonghi in Panighat Figure 4 Peak and off-season fishing grounds exploited by fisherfolk from three study communities Figure 5 Location of study communities and marine national parks Figure 6 The waters edge of Junglighat community Figure 7 Fish catch at Panighat 77 78 81 82 82 83 84 85 86 86 88 88 89 90 97 97 102 109 110 117 123 131 132 132 135 136 137 152 154 155 156 158 162 169 ix .

Darumba Table 11 Poverty criteria.Figures to Case Study 4 Figure 1 Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Agatti Island Figure 2 Population size in UT Lakshadweep since 1901 Figure 3 Diagram illustrating atoll island formation Figure 4 The hydrological cycle Figure 5 A map illustrating the traditional fishing and land rights of the people of Agatti Island Figure 6 Population in Agatti since 1951 Figure 7 Total number of households in Agatti since 1951 Figure 8 Sources of income generation in Agatti Island Figure 9 Patterns of primary employment amongst the economically active population of Agatti Island Figure 10 Pole and line tuna fishing in Lakshadweep Figure 11 Men preparing tuna mas on Agatti Island Figure 12 Income distribution on Agatti Island Figure 13 Weaving coconut leaves for thatching Figure 14 Kal moodsal fishing in Agatti lagoon Figure 15 Women reef gleaners on Agatti Island 192 193 194 194 198 199 199 200 200 201 202 206 209 210 213 TABLES Tables to Case Study 1 Table 1 Population data (1997) Table 2 Education and sanitation (1997) Table 3 Maueia social infrastructure Table 4 Darumba social infrastructure Table 5 Messano social infrastructure Table 6 Study village comparison table Table 7 Poverty criteria. Tamil Nadu and coastal districts Table 3 Caste groupings in coastal districts bordering the Gulf of Mannar Table 4 Characteristics of the 21 islands of the Gulf of Mannar Table 5 Administrative units of the coastal districts of the Gulf of Mannar Table 6 Study village comparison table 78 78 82 85 87 90 93 93 94 94 94 94 96 97 98 98 100 102 105 118 118 119 119 121 122 x . Messano Table 12 Cross-tabulations of poverty rank. Maueia Table 8 Cross-tabulations of poverty rank. Maueia Table 9 Poverty criteria. Messano Table 13 A summary of reef benefits to household resources Table 14 Perceived contribution to overall household well-being Table 15 Estimated contributions to household income Table 16 Estimated contribution to internally consumed benefit Table 17 A summary of reef benefits to direct influencing factors Table 18 A summary of reef benefits towards coping with indirect influencing factors Table 19 A summary of key changes in reef-derived livelihoods. contributing factors and impacts in Northern Mozambique Tables to Case Study 2 Table 1 Demographic statistics for India. Tamil Nadu and coastal districts Table 2 Social development statistics for India. Darumba Table 10 Cross-tabulations of poverty rank.

Idinthakalpudur Cross-tabulations of poverty rank. contributing factors and impacts in the Gulf of Mannar 124 124 125 127 128 128 128 128 130 132 134 137 139 Tables to Case Study 3 Table 1 Details of the early settlement of fisherfolk Table 2 Andaman and Nicobar Islands demographic data Table 3 Comparison of selected social development indicators for Andaman and Nicobar Islands and India Table 4 Andaman and Nicobar Islands administrative divisions Table 5 Village comparison table Table 6 Social infrastructure in Guptapara Table 7 Social infrastructure in Panighat Table 8 Social infrastructure in Junglighat Table 9 Rural and urban BPL classifications Table 10 Percentage of households with BPL and APL classifications in three study communites Table 11 Proportions of households distributed among three wealth categories Table 12 Characteristics of poverty in Guptapara Table 13 Characteristics of poverty in Panighat Table 14 Characteristics of poverty in Junglighat Table 15 A summary of reef benefits to household resources Table 16 A summary of reef benefits to direct influencing factors Table 17 A summary of reef benefits towards coping with indirect influencing factors Table 18 A summary of changes in reef-derived livelihoods. Thavukadu A summary of reef benefits to household resources Estimated range of annual income from sea-based products A summary of reef benefits to direct influencing factors A summary of reef benefits towards coping with indirect influencing factors A summary of key changes in reef-derived livelihoods. contributing factors and impacts on Agatti Island 152 153 153 157 159 160 162 163 166 166 166 166 167 167 168 172 174 175 192 193 197 199 201 205 208 212 214 216 xi . Indiranagar Cross-tabulations of poverty rank. population and population density Table 3 A summary of community characteristics of Agatti Island Table 4 Social infrastructure on Agatti Island Table 5 Fish landings in Agatti during 2000 Table 6 Wealth characteristics in Agatti Island Table 7 A summary of reef benefits to household resources Table 8 A summary of reef benefits to direct influencing factors Table 9 A summary of reef benefits towards coping with indirect influencing factors Table 10 A summary of key changes in reef-derived livelihoods.Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Idinthakalpudur social infrastructure Indiranagar social infrastructure Thavukadu social infrastructure Poverty criteria evolved by local participants in three villages in the Gulf of Mannar Distribution of households amongst three wealth categories Cross-tabulations of poverty rank. basic facts Table 2 Land-wise area. contributing factors and impacts on South Andaman Island Tables to Case Study 4 Table 1 Lakshadweep Island.

BOXES Boxes to Case Study 1 Box 1 Reef resources as a source of foreign exchange Box 2 Fisheries as a sense of identity Box 3 Quirimbas National Park Box 4 Reef resources as an alternative to agriculture Box 5 Opportunities of seaweed cultivation Boxes to Case Study 2 Box 1 The Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve (GOMMBR) Box 2 Origin of Thavukadu village name Box 3 Local perceptions of the reef resource Box 4 The male and female seas of the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay Box 5 A list of locally exploited medicinal properties of marine species Box 6 A selection of traditional beliefs Box 7 The reef as a safety net for female-headed households Box 8 Multiple fisheries-based opportunities Boxes to Case Study 3 Box 1 An overview of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Supreme Court order Box 2 Fish in exchange for tuition fees Box 3 Women gaining control of household income and expenditure through fish vending Box 4 Farming and fishing in Guptapara Box 5 Fishers losing nets and falling back on handlines Boxes to Case Study 4 Box 1 Reef biodiversity in Lakshadweep Box 2 Sharing of resources between islands Box 3 Poor household case study 1 Box 4 Poor household case study 2 Box 5 Poor household case study 3 Box 6 A love song from Kiltan Island Box 7 Traditional knowledge and customary practices Box 8 Bala Fadal: an example of collaborative fishing on Agatti Island Box 9 Profile of a cowrie collector Box 10 A seasonal calendar for sea-based activities on Agatti Island Box 11 Reef resources as a coping mechanism against famine Box 12 Legislating the use of coral for construction 98 99 101 103 103 120 125 129 131 133 133 138 141 157 170 173 174 174 195 202 206 206 207 211 211 211 214 215 215 218 xii .

ex. have assessed the wider value of coral reefs at a local livelihoods level. enhanced or substituted for in the future. The RLA project work started with a broad overview of the literature associated with reefs and poverty and this was distributed to an Internet Advisory Group for comments. more qualitative. India: CARESS (desk study only) IMM also worked with CORDIO in Kenya to incorporate examples of their work into the report. This information is critical for the development of policy regarding support for coral reefs and coastal communities as a strategy of poverty alleviation. This knowledge is intended to contribute to informing DFID’s future policy on support for reefs and coastal communities as a strategy for poverty alleviation. particularly subsistence fishing.ac. the project developed and tested an appropriate field method together with a partner organisation at the first case study location in the Gulf of Mannar. The case studies were implemented by partner organisations as follows: • • • • Gulf of Mannar. The RLA outputs are presented in two volumes. which recognises that the livelihoods of poor people must be at the centre of any strategy for poverty reduction. is often quoted as being vital to the livelihoods of many poor indigenous coastal communities but what that dependency consists of is unclear. Reefs are mainly found in developing countries where a substantial proportion of the population is living in poverty. the first Volume 1: A Global Overview is based on an overview of literature and experience on the value of reef-related benefit flows to poor coastal communities and is illustrated with examples from the case studies.uk/imm/rla. or the value of coral reefs to coastal poor people. The second and current Volume 2 is a compilation of the four case study reports.BACKGROUND BACKGROUND TO THE REEF LIVELIHOODS ASSESSMENT PROJECT The Reef Livelihoods Assessment (RLA) Project was funded by DFID UK and managed and implemented on their behalf by IMM Ltd of Exeter UK. India: ANET Lakshadweep Islands. in the pursuit of coral reef management and sustainable development. The International Development Target (IDT) of reducing poverty by a half by 2015 is reflected in DFID’s Target Strategy Paper. htm). as well as how and why these benefits have changed over time. The aim of the RLA project was to use a livelihoods approach to assess the wider. This was used during the project to develop a wider context of value. The Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) provides a way of understanding both the complexity and holistic nature of the lives of vulnerable coastal communities. incorporating all aspects of peoples’ lives and using value systems defined by the poor themselves. value of coral reefs to vulnerable coastal communities. Mozambique: Kusi Lda and IDPPE Andaman Islands. It will also contribute more widely to economic and policy research targeting coral reefs and coastal communities. as well as a picture of the nature and extent of reef benefits to all aspects of the livelihoods of the poor. It is also hoped that the work will contribute to wider global policy development in the area of poverty and reefs. and avoid the costs associated with coral reef destruction. Combining this overview with the SLA. India: SPEECH Cabo Delgado. equity and security’. The teams from the partner organisations received training from IMM in the use of the RLA field method and the field work was then co-ordinated and the reports harmonised by IMM staff. To influence policy-makers. if any. ‘Halving World Poverty by 2015: economic growth. very few valuations. economic valuation has been used at national levels as a tool to demonstrate that sustainable use and conservation of coral reefs can generate economic benefits. India. and how they may be sustained. This provides a much broader understanding of the benefits derived from coral reefs. This research provided an understanding of the nature of poverty amongst reef dependent communities. However. The project began in November 2001 and was completed by November 2002. The method was then applied in case studies at two further sites in South Asia and one in East Africa. xiii . Dependence on coral reefs. Progress and suggestions were posted on the project website (www.

Consequently. xiv . in response to a specific demand for information. to contribute to informing a policy decision within DFID UK. Each case study also outlines the local perceptions and extent of poverty and using the framework of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach outlines the key benefit flows from the reef to the poor reef-dependent stakeholders in the study communities. economic and administrative factors which affect livelihood opportunities at those locations. focusing on the different social. It is hoped that the approach used and knowledge generated will be a stimulus for further study to evolve and expand this initial approach and understanding of poverty and reefs and the livelihoods of poor reef-dependent stakeholders. In the current document these examples are placed in the wider context of the study areas and communities. the study locations were chosen to reflect priority areas for DFID and each study period was limited to around 6 weeks in order to meet the pressing demand for information required by the policy process. ecological.BACKGROUND TO VOLUME 2: CASE STUDIES Volume 2: Case Studies presents reports from the four case studies carried out as part of the RLA project. For this reason the scope of each study was limited and the depth of information and analysis was confined to an overview highlighting the key issues. Each report has been edited from the original to enhance consistency of content and style. The studies were undertaken. as described above. alongside other examples from around the world taken from the literature. Changes to reef-derived livelihoods in the study communities are also briefly reviewed. Many examples from the case studies are included in Volume 1. Volume 2 is intended as a background and support document for the overview and discussion in Volume 1.

A Case Study from Mozambique James Wilson Paulo Muchave Amade Garrett 73 .

Kusi Lda. IDPPE representative in Pemba. The contributions. May these initiatives help to determine the road ahead. All photos in Study 1 were supplied by James Wilson. Darumba and Messano are also very gratefully acknowledged. patience and hard work of the populations of the villages of Maueia. driver. but special thanks are due to the following without whose input and support the study would have been very much more difficult: Simeão Lopes. Salimo Adamuge. 74 . Paulo Muchave and Amade Garrett from IDDPE undertook the fieldwork and analysis of information contained in this document and are principally responsible for the compilation of this report.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS James Wilson from Kusi Lda. Director of IDPPE. Abel Mabunda. Many people assisted with the making of this study.

NOMENCLATURE ACRONYMS GDP IDPPE IIP NGO OJM OMM RLA UNDP WWF Gross domestic product Instituto Nacional de Desenvolvimento da Pesca de Pequena Escala (National Institute for the Development of Small Scale Fishing) Instituto Nacional de Investigação Pesqueira (National Institute for Fisheries Research) Non Governmental Organisation Organização de Juventude Moçambicana (Mozambican youth organisation) Organização de Mulheres Moçambicanas (Mozambican women’s organisation) Reef Livelihoods Assessment United National Development Programme World Wide Fund for Nature LOCAL TERMINOLOGY Capulanas Printed wrap Casquinha Small dugout canoe Dua Sailing vessel Kitanda Drag-net fishing Machamba Agricultural plot or field Mashua Sailing vessel Mbande Shell opercula Nekanga Senior figure associated with traditional cures Ngongo Sailing vessel Shehe Religious leader 75 .

The latter was largely adhered to. The first two sections of the report give a contextual overview of the study area and study communities. Finally. ecological. The following case study report provides a detailed overview of reef-based livelihoods in Mozambique’s northern province of Cabo Delgado. concluding remarks are made in Section 6. entitled Reef Livelihoods. Benefits arising from the reef resources to all aspects of the livelihoods of the poorer members of the communities are described Section 4. following training in field methodology set out in IMM and SPEECH (2002). Section 5 outlines how reef-derived livelihoods have changed and discusses the causes of these changes and impacts on the local livelihoods. 76 . identifying what characteristics locally define the very poor households and estimating the extent of poverty existing in the communities. summarising key aspects of the benefits of reef resources to the livelihoods of the poor comunities of Northern Mozambique and how these have responded to change. focusing on three village communities. outlining key social. Section 3 discusses the features of poverty in the study communities. but some key changes were made to the methodology to successfully secure improved data capture and reduce the duration of some of the field exercises (as outlined in Annex 1).BACKGROUND TO THE MOZAMBIQUE CASE STUDY The Mozambique case study was carried out in partnership with Kusi Limitada consultants and IDPPE – the National Institute for the Development of Small Scale Fishing. economic and administrative characteristics of the area and local livelihood systems. Field work was carried out over a 6 week period starting in June 2002.

Note from the table the low level of urbanisation and the fact that over 40% of the population is less than 14 years old. and it is difficult to see why this should be Figure 1 Cabo Delgado province 77 . More than 90 000 people are directly involved with artisanal fishing (excluding those involved with trading and processing) operating about 11 000 vessels equipped with a wide variety of fishing gear. The catch from the artisanal sector as a whole is almost entirely destined for the domestic market and represents an important source of protein for the nation.6. Messano and Darumba. the most northern of Mozambique’s 11 provinces. Nationally it is estimated that two-thirds of the population lives within 150 km of the coast. Maueia to the south. Primary data from this study indicates an average household population of 4. bordering Tanzania (Figure 1). 1.1 STUDY AREA CONTEXT T he study area chosen in Mozambique was the south of Cabo Delgado Province. the provincial capital is likewise situated on the coast and it would be reasonable to estimate that around 40–60% of the population of the province live within 150 km of the coast. but it must be remembered that Mozambique’s capital and second largest city are both within this band. are situated in the north of the southern zone and the third. In Cabo Delgado. Two of the study villages. Mozambique has 2750 km of coastline and coastal enterprises (including fisheries) play an important role in both the national economy and coastal livelihoods.1 SOCIAL SETTING Basic population data for the province is presented in Table 1.

Data for the province are presented from the 1997 census in Figure 2. TABLE 2 EDUCATION AND SANITATION (1997) Illiteracy rate (rural) Male Female Population >15 years old with no schooling (rural) Male Female Sanitation (rural) Houses with latrine Houses without latrine Source: National Population Census. and may contribute to high child mortality and frequent outbreaks of associated diseases (especially cholera).5 123. poor sanitation practices and food security.8 m (neap tides). Climatic conditions are marked by distinct periods of rainfall and predictable changes in wind direction and strength throughout the year. running east–west. a hot season (coinciding with the rains) where average temperatures vary between 25–27°C. Overall life expectancy in the province is under 38 years.6 206.9 0–5 years old Figure 2 Infant mortality per 1000 (1997) Source: National Population Census. broken down between rural and urban locations. Around the Quirimbas Archipelago.0 95. Rates of illiteracy and lack of schooling are extremely high. Messano and Darumba. cutting into the continental shelf. There are two distinct seasons of the year. The northern and central coast of the province is flanked by the Quirimbas Archipelago. In the south of the province the immediate coastal topography is flatter and with more productive soils The undersea topography is characterised by a series of deep canals.6 1 287 814 48% 52% 42% 55% 3% 17% 83% 15. fringing reefs are numerous away from river mouths and around offshore islands. as is the case of the hinterland behind two of the study villages. 1997 350 300 309. an irregular chain of 28 coralline islands running north–south about 10 km from the coast. cutting between islands and finish in sandy grassy regions to the west of the islands. Along the northern coastline of Mozambique. biodiversity is high.6 3. stretching from just south of the Tanzania border to north of Pemba. One explanation is possibly the influence (and different statistical treatment) of polygamy on the data. such is the case of the canal immediately to the south of the island of Matemo (see Figure 7). 87–91% of which falls between December and March. Outline data for education and sanitation for Cabo Delgado are shown in Table 2. 78 . In the north and centre the coastal zone is characterised by a series of parallel hills running north–south. and reflect the disruption to education as a result of the civil war. These canals start in very deep water. High infant mortality is considered to be directly linked to poor health infrastructure (both in terms of existence and operability).8). Coastal (terrestrial) topography is characterised by sandy soils often with underlying rock. 1.5 154.8 250 200 150 100 50 0 0–1 years old 1–5 years old Urban Rural 183. The status of primary health care in the province is probably best reflected in the infant mortality statistics – total infant mortality (up to 5 years) is 309 per 1000 in rural areas of Cabo Delgado. with strong currents especially in deeper areas. in front of Darumba. Total annual rainfall is 900–1000 mm. Tidal amplitude varies from 6 m (spring tides) to 2. and a cooler period with temperatures of 22–25°C (May– October). The general lack of sanitation facilities is likewise dire.2 ECOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL SETTING Cabo Delgado province is in a humid (semi-arid) tropical zone. 1997.TABLE 1 POPULATION DATA (1997) Population Total Male Female Population age 0–14 years 15–64 >65 Population distribution Urban Rural Population density (ps/km2) per household (rural) Source: National Population Census. 1997 65% 92% 83% 96% 34% 65% so different from the data of the 1997 census (household population=3.

each with a district administrator (again appointed). The agricultural harvest period spans March to August. there may be a representative of ministries which are considered key to that area. There are no data on the extent of coral resources in the same zone. the rate of recovery of affected reefs in the area is reported to be very good. Average families may be able to maintain stocks through to February. and as a result levels of community organisation and politicisation are low. sorghum and millet. Other natural threats to reefs include the Crown-of-Thorns starfish and white band disease (Governo da Província de Delgado. Principle agricultural products in Cabo Delgado are (in order of importance) cassava. Relevant to this study. It was in many aspects very similar to the Ujamaa villagisation policy implemented in the same period in Tanzania. although the Frontier study compiled a detailed resource inventory. Grassroots organisations in the study area (and in Mozambique as a whole) are extremely rare. there is a village head. A civil war engulfed the country from the late 1970s to early 1990s. There is very little completed research on the status of marine resources. Only after the 1992 peace accord was Mozambique able to effectively pursue economic policies. This is then followed by a period of food deficit from December to March. principally with the aim of improving the provision of social services. a considerable amount of economic and administrative power still remains under central control. primarily in poorer households.3 POLITICAL AND ORGANISATIONAL SETTING Mozambique gained its independence in 1975. which at the last election in 1999 restored the FRELIMO party to power for a second successive term. Subsequent studies indicate high coral mortality from the 1998–1999 El Niño coral bleaching event. In the southern coastal zone of the province there are better commercial links with the provincial capital. Today Mozambique has a democratic government system. product and input markets and control. Sweet potatoes are also important in the Quirimbas Archipelago. This forced villages to come together. Seagrass resources are more widespread and include 10 species. the exception being Fisheries. market determination of prices and exchange rates. usually elected by the village and endorsed by local government. Pemba. The country is divided into 11 administrative provinces. primarily due to the effects of the war and the departure of many (foreign) entrepreneurs. Each ministry in principle has provincial directorates. a Frontier study of 1998. and resulted in a collapse in production. At district level. Subsequent to this. The latter is buoyed significantly by a single major industrial investment in aluminium smelting. the high degree of control exerted by the command economy of the early years of independence and the total failure of the state-fostered co-operative movement of the same period. However. and this was accompanied by an exodus of most Portuguese settlers and Asian traders. adoption of central planning and nationalisation of major enterprises. 2002). Today GDP per capita is around $225. which covered the southern part of the Quirimbas Archipelago (from Macaloe Island to Quipaco Island) estimated mangrove resources to cover around 20 km2 (Frontier. The extent of resources in the study area has not been documented. maize. based on privatisation of economic assets and functions. and heavy dependence on foreign aid. in spite of the fact that this is often one of the first purchases made with disposable income.with records of over 50 hard coral genera and over 300 species of reef fish (Spalding et al. whilst fisheries products (mostly industrially caught shrimp). covering an estimated 60 km2. and more recently aluminium. 1998) and include eight species. as 79 . but with a growth rate of a little under 10%. A result of this is that even today in areas where the policy was successfully implemented (such as Cabo Delgado). destruction and deterioration of infrastructure and public services. In each village. around 80% of households in the province have no radio. make up the bulk of exports. which was only relatively recently made a ministry and still shares staff and facilities with the 1. Ministry of Agriculture. The latter two products are mostly consumed in the south of the province. each with a provincial governor (appointed by the centre) and each province is divided into districts. Below the district there are localities and administrative posts. rice. The domestic economy continues to be based primarily on agriculture. but poor families normally use up stocks by October. In spite of encouraging growth.4 ECONOMIC SETTING Mozambique’s economy declined rapidly during the early years of independence. especially on more sheltered reefs. the country remains very poor and Cabo Delgado province is one of the most disadvantaged. The absence of such organisations can be attributed to the complete disruption of the fabric of society during the civil war.. Those more exposed to the open ocean are reported to have been less affected. and rationalisation of public expenditure and fiscal balance. the geographic distribution of people and villages was influenced by a national villagisation programme implemented over the early years of independence. 2001). As an indicator. Although the implementation of decentralised government systems is becoming stronger. small villages (less than 200 households) remain very rare. 1.

affecting access to markets and essential social services. there being no industrial or semi-industrial vessels operating in the province. followed by traps. whilst fresh fish distribution is usually limited to nearby towns. • • • • • EXTERNAL FACTORS CONTROLLING LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES Much of the context outlined above points at external factors that influence livelihoods in the study villages. In the study area the important tertiary and secondary roads all require periodic maintenance (to keep them passable in the rainy season). (Governo de Província de Cabo Delgado and Cooperação Espanhola. mashua and ngongo). such as the coral bleaching event. Road communications have an important and obvious influence on rural livelihoods. This clearly has had an important influence on livelihoods and should national political stability decline again. outrigger canoes. 80 . the proximity of reefs etc. The key issues are considered to be: • Location and nature of natural and physical resources. opercula (known as mbande) and sea cucumbers. Livelihoods. The fishery responds to primary subsistence needs within fishing communities and also supplies rural and urban markets as far afield as Maputo. of which less than 0. Reef quality. Coastal communities have very different livelihood opportunities 1. degree of protection afforded by reefs. This includes beach profile.. The role of agriculture is determined primarily by soil quality and water resources. agriculture plays an important role in almost every household. Major markets for dried fish include Montepuez and Nampula. Variability of agriculture. some frozen prawns. 1999) The fishery in Cabo Delgado is entirely artisanal. Reef degradation due to external effects such as El Niño clearly have potential to affect livelihoods. in general. Vessels used include simple dugout canoes. Even in ‘fishing’ communities. however it should be noted that no reference was made by the three study communities at any stage during the field work to degradation of reef quality due to natural processes. Communications. low domestic agricultural production due to poor soils and irregularity of rainfall. banks and islands. Not only does the activity depend partially on imported materials (making it vulnerable to devaluation) but also fish as a market product historically is seen as a lagging price indicator – price changes do not immediately reflect cost of production increases. The most commonly used fishing gear are handlines. and a range of planked sailing vessels (dau. Water shortages may occur in the coastal zone between September and December. which cannot necessarily be guaranteed. The 1995 census indicated that there were just under 90001 fishers in the province and 1900 fishing vessels. gastropod shells. As indicated above this is can be attributed to effects of the civil war and the policies of the early years of independence. In both northern and southern coastal zones poorer families use a significant part of cash income to buy basic foodstuffs In the northern part of Cabo Delgado there is. Families here have higher agricultural output and normally produce 75% of food requirements.well as better soils. Civil war and national political stability. tend to be vulnerable to the effects of monetary devaluation and inflation. Export products from the fishery include frozen lobster (mainly from Moçimboa da Praia).5 • depending upon the coastal geography. especially those heavily dependent on fisheries. all of which will influence marine livelihood opportunities. beach seines and gill nets. Lack of grassroots organisation and politicisation. livelihoods would be severely compromised. Monetary devaluation and inflation. The use of ice or refrigeration is uncommon and most fish sent out from the coastal area is salted and sun-dried. Climatic variability has great influence on agricultural production and hence livelihoods.5% were motorised.

2. many of which are only seasonal. The coastline is exposed. Beyond the rock plateau.1. The geography of the area is flat to undulating. Macua. water depth increases rapidly (see Figure 4) and is characterised by fringing reefs in parallel bands.1 MAUEIA Maueia is a village straddling the secondary road between Pemba (provincial capital) and Mecufi (district capital). bringing together populations of three nearby villages including Chicapa (visible in Figures 3 and 4). The village is about 700 m from the coast. but the dependency ratio (total number of persons in a household divided by the number of economically active adults) was estimated as 2.3) and. and drops down to a coralline rocky plateau which is exposed at low tide. its inhabitants are highly dependent upon benefits from land-based activities. The social infrastructure of Maueia is summarised in Table 3. the highest of the three villages surveyed. for easier comparison. 81 .2 COMMUNITY CONTEXT areas as far away as Tete (the most western of Mozambique’s provinces). The village was created immediately after independence as part of the villagisation process.6. both of which can be reached in less than an hour. however. and that few organisations (governmental or non-governmental) have any links or history with the community. All of the indigenous residents are Muslims. but also the River Chicapa. and there are a few families from other Figure 3 Maueia land map.1. It was apparent during the field work that the village is somehow forgotten. On the coast. By provincial standards it is a very small community of 130 houses (see Section 1. with the core of the community being on the other side of the river. No specific data were collected on age structure. Newcomers are confined to an area of the village to the south of River Chicapa. 2. This section summarises the context of each community. The village has neither electricity nor telephone (the nearest being in Mecufi). in Table 6. Marine resources do. the sandy beach is narrow and steep. There is daily public transport to both Pemba and Mecufi. with frequent small depressions caused by rivers and streams. there being no outer islands or offshore reef.1 Geographic setting Maueia is situated on a secondary road 7 km south of Morrebwe and 22 km from Pemba.2 Social setting The vast majority of the population of Maueia are from a single tribal group. Details are presented both in the text of the following three subsections and. The first 20 m of the rocky plateau are covered with mud/sand which supports a few mangroves. The road is unsurfaced but remains passable during the rainy season. Maueia is bisected not only by the road. 2. in spite of its proximity to the coast. which can only be accessed via a network of small footpaths over low scrub-covered dunes. still make an important contribution to the community’s livelihoods.

Marine resources are divided into those in the intertidal zone (molluscs. Displaced families mostly fled to Pemba or Nampula Gender Of the economically active persons (note that this did not include old persons or children) 46% were male. soils are very sandy and the strip between the road and the coast only supports crops in a few areas with better access to fresh water. No latrines in the village. Nearest health post in Morrebwe (7 km). only one with working pump. mango trees and almost no productive cashews. Nearer the coast. Three wells. as well as large and small pelagics. Culture Apart from the Muslim faith and its attendant ceremonies. Note that the fish resources include both reef dwelling demersals. and relies on rain-fed agriculture. octopus) and the fish resources associated with the reef system. One mosque. Details of activities and responsibilities by gender are summarised in Table 6. there is also widespread participation in more traditional religious practices. other fisheries resources being typically diverse (see list in Annex 2).1. Neritidae undata. No health infrastructure or personnel. 82 . Health Water Sanitation Religion Figure 5 Commonly harvested intertidal mollusc. Land behind the village is wooded savannah.Life in Maueia was badly disrupted by the civil war – at the time of unification of the three villages (1976) there were an estimated 970 houses in the village and by the end of the war (1992) only 74 remained. The most common mollusc harvested is the small gastropod Neritidae (Figure 5). and was reported to be reasonably productive for agriculture. in spite of the fact the village is bounded by two small rivers and straddles a third. Comment Brick and mortar school exists but is at south side of village and is without a roof. 2. Shehe (religious leader) recently deceased. 54% were female closely mirroring the data for the rural areas of the province as a whole (see Table 1). Only dry in extreme conditions. Figure 4 Maueia marine chart. The village has a few palms. TABLE 3 MAUEIA SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE Sector Education Infrastructure One school (mud and thatch) with two rooms Primary education only.3 Ecological setting Maueia is situated in a relatively dry area. Some ceremonies are focused upon a site near to the coast in the southern part of the village where a long time ago people took refuge from attacking tribes. including initiations.

the latter being particularly active in the organisation of sport and culture (dance). friends or traders. 83 . It should be noted that there is a clear division between those activities which serve home consumption (agriculture. Within Maueia there is a functioning village executive council comprised of various key people. In addition. The council also has representatives of national political organisations such as OMM (Mozambican Women’s Organisation). fisheries.1. 2. trade. Proximity to Pemba means that both producers and traders will make trips to the city to sell significant excess. Intertidal resources are easily accessed from the beach on foot. and participation in these is detailed in Table 6. mollusc resources in the intertidal zone appear to be degraded. some fishing). etc. Some fisheries resources can be accessed directly from the coast (swimming with spear-gun).5 Administrative setting The administrative and political structure of the village is typical.Figure 6 Maueia beach panorama at low tide. women. The development of markets in Pemba has had some impact in Maueia and fishers will even cycle to the tourist hotels to sell fish.4 Economic setting Maueia has three principle economic opportunities: agriculture. fisheries) and those which generate cash revenue (charcoal production. cooking oil. 2. each responsible for a particular sector (agriculture. but most require a casquinha – a small dugout canoe with outriggers propelled by paddle or sail (Figure 6). rather than look for buyers in the village. sport. kerosene) at their front door. Fishing pressure was less than other communities as a result of the difficult access (lack of shelter) and the community being primarily farmers. OJM (Mozambican Youth Organisation). It should be noted that Maueia’s proximity to Pemba greatly increases opportunities for salaried employment. with 42% of households involved in only one (or less) productive activity. charcoal production. There are about six people in the village who sell basic items (cigarettes. Accessible credit sources are hence all informal and linked either to family. It was not clear if the head of the village was also the community leader (a position of more traditional authority). and fishing. Finance There is no financial infrastructure in either Maueia or Morrebwe – the nearest bank is in Pemba. Life in Maueia was completely disrupted by the civil war.1.1. A summary of household productive assets is also presented in Table 6. There are no immediately accessible health resources. Commercial links Maueia has no shop or permanent stall – the ‘market’ is an open area under a mango tree with no infrastructure at all. As with the other two communities studied.6 Vulnerabilities and risks faced by the community The principle vulnerabilities and risks faced by the community in Maueia are: Drought Animal diseases War Health risks Particularly vulnerable due to high dependence on agriculture. district and provincial administration. sanitation is extremely poor.). In general the livelihood strategies are less diversified than in the other study villages. There is a head (man) elected by the people. Newcastle’s disease means that all chickens are slaughtered in the dry season. who is recognised by local. 2. and cholera-type disease risk is high. Fish resources were considered to be healthy though not very large. Within the national hierarchy. the head of the village answers to the head of the administrative post in Morrebwe.

marine and riverine fin fish and shrimp. There is no phone or electricity in either Darumba or Mucojo – the nearest phone is at Macomia.2. From Mucojo the district capital (Macomia) is a further 45 km to the west (reached by unsurfaced road). There is public transport to Macomia via Mucojo about twice per week. The coast immedately in front of the village is covered with low density mangrove. protected by an offshore bank running north towards Olumbua.1 Geographic setting Darumba is situated on a small rise on a low lying peninsular in front of the island of Matemo in the Southern Quirimbas. Maueia is in cyclone latitudes. Declining resources Poorer households have higher dependence on intertidal gastropod resources which are reported to be progressively declining.2 DARUMBA Darumba is a small community in front of the southern part of the Quirimbas Archipelago.Bad weather Seasonal food shortages Cyclone Economic turmoil The coast is exposed and bad weather will quickly reduce fishing activities.e. the lowest of the three villages surveyed. including bivalves. All of the village residents are Muslims. whilst the minor part (to the south east) has a working cold store and a few houses.2. but with varying degrees of adherance. stocks and savings to last the whole year. Maueia was affected by national economic problems during the early 1980s. with some Macuas. Livelihoods in Darumba are more dependent upon fisheries resources. some 4 km further upstream on the same river where Darumba stands today. The village was established in 1987 by families fleeing attacks by guerrilla forces on Mipande. 84 . but the community fished the river and reef areas prior to the resettlement. It is also noteworthy that no houses were encountered without a productive person in the household (i. but people were encountered from as far away as Beira (Sofala province). The village is subdivided by a low lying sandy flat which floods at high spring tide. This route is the only viable means of land access – the coastal route to the south (via Mipande) shown in Figure 7 is not passable. totally dependent on outside support). February – March is always a difficult time. the southern extremety of which is coralline and is known as Nvú. 2. Darumba is some 20 km from the local administrative post in Mucojo (reached by sandy narrow track). Figure 7 Messano and Darumba land map. and Pemba some 180 km to the south of Macomia (reached by tarred road). seldom sufficient. There are few. The southern edge of the peninsular is bounded by River Quiria Makoma and the eastern edge by the sea. People even resorted to tree bark clothing. The last one (1969) brought total destruction. when there was money but nothing to buy. 2. The main part of village has most of the houses and infrastructute. the village is not as isolated as it might seem.9. In Mipande livelihoods are more focused on agriculture. and from there transport to Pemba passes daily.2 Social setting Most of the population of Darumba is from the Mwani tribal group. In spite of the remote location and difficult access. In the absence of public transport the only way to reach Mucojo is on foot. whose inhabitants are primarily fishers. The dependency ratio for households was estimated as 1. There appeared to be few ‘outsiders’ in the village. 2.

No information was available or gathered on the status of immediate coral based resources. The most common molluscs harvested are the bivalves Pteriidae and Arcidae (Figures 9 and 10). No health infrastructure or personnel.2. Primary education only. Health Water Sanitation Religion 85 . The other fisheries resources being typically diverse (see list in Annex 2). Culture Apart from the Muslim faith and its attendant ceremonies. octopus) and the fish resources associated with the reef system. This number has now dropped to its present level of 186 as families returned over the years after the peace accord. there being several small tributaries feeding into the river exclusively from the south side. Details were not divulged but key persons. The river makes an important contribution to catches and yields shrimp (Penaens indicus. P. 48% were female. there is also widespread participation in more traditional religious practices. including Nvú (the focus of much collection and marine fishing effort). three traditional wells with poor water quality. No latrines in the village. All agriculture is undertaken in the area immediately across the river from the village.protection). As with the other two study communities. including initiation and particular ceremonies to assure good results from productive activities. animal invasion is still a threat. (a senior female figure associated with traditional cures) and the community leader (a male figure of traditional authority) were clearly held in high esteem. The civil war affected Darumba. 2. Gender Of the economically active people (note that this did not include old persons or children) 52% were male. makes it unsuitable for reliable agricultural production. whereas others. and was one of the causes behind its foundation in 1987. Resources in the river were reported as healthy but with shrimp under increasing pressure following local market developments. The village has a few palms. somewhat different from the data for the rural areas of the province as a whole (see Table 1). but only posts for walls. but is at south side of village and is without a roof. where although the soils are better. but those at Matemo were described in 1998 as in good condition (Frontier. Comment Brick and mortar school exists. The social infrastructure of Darumba is summarised in Table 4. One well with pump.3 Ecological setting Land immediately surrounding Darumba is very sandy and poor which. Nearest health post in Mucojo (20 km). During the war the number of houses rose to about 290 households (boosted by families seeking TABLE 4 DARUMBA SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE Sector Education Infrastructure One school with roof. mollusc resources in the intertidal zone appear to be degraded. One mosque. 1998). such as the Nekanga. Details of activities and responsibilities by gender are presented in Table 6. Marine resources are divided into those in the intertidal zone (molluscs. monodon). Some of the intertidal resources are easily accessed from the beach on foot. Figure 8 Messano and Darumba marine chart. together with large populations of warthogs and monkeys. mango trees and productive cashews. can only be accessed by vessel. mangrove crabs and a wide variety of salt and brackish water fish. Land here has better access to water.

as well as other informal sources including family. February–March is always a difficult time. A few people also sell basic items (cigarettes. There are representatives of the national political organisations OMM (women) and OJM (youth). Darumba had a more confused party political setting. who is recognised by local. Health risks Seasonal food shortages Declining resources Road access Animals eating Elephants. There is a head (man) elected by the people. The general strategy is more diversified than in Maueia. Poorer households have higher dependence on intertidal bivalve resources which are reported to be progressively declining. 2. resulting in competition. and trading. district and provincial administration. As indicated above. Figure 10 Commonly harvested intertidal mollusc. exclusion and some low level tension.4 Economic setting Darumba has three principle economic opportunities: fishing. also take products to inland markets. In the former case the water table rises and floods houses in the lower areas of the village. Arcidae. 86 . The roads between Darumba and Mucojo. a community leader was identified who clearly had more traditional authority. warthogs. There have been no less than six health epidemics since 1987 (including scabies. The head man answers to the head of the administrative post in Mucojo. but has stalls at a village market under a mango tree. Mucojo or Macomia – the nearest bank is again in Pemba (at least a day’s travel). monkeys devastate both crops planting and harvest. Some traders. There are also longstanding commercial links with Tanzania through traders coming south or going north. Finance There is no financial infrastructure in either Darumba.Figure 9 Commonly harvested intertidal mollusc. including Montepuez. There are few. with a small programme for micro credit in coastal communities). stocks and savings to last the whole year. malaria. tuberculosis).5 Administrative setting The administrative and political structure of the village is similar to that of Maueia. The latter requires periodic major reconstruction.2. No reference was made to the village executive council. cholera. Commercial links Darumba has no shop. agriculture. The principal primary markets for products from Darumba are the cold store in the village (higher value fish products) and Macomia (dried fish). with 29% of households involved in only one (or less) productive activity. seldom sufficient.6 Vulnerabilities and risks faced by the community The principle vulnerabilities and risks faced by the community in Darumba are: Rainfall Both excessive and lack of rain. 2.2. kerosene) at their front door. meningitis. cooking oil.2. and between Mucojo and Macomia are prone to degradation. A summary of household productive assets is also presented in Table 6. friends or traders. though it is most unlikely that the village did not have one. 2. but eased by the seasonal peak in fisheries. particularly those returning with food or clothing to sell. with elements of the community clearly aligned to different political parties. Pteriidae. Credit sources include an NGO (Amoder. and participation in these is detailed in Table 6.

Water One well with pump. two traditional wells of which one has poor water quality. 2. 87 . Religion Two mosques. trading is important. A surprising 23% of households are estimated to be female-headed (without a resident male). however.3. and from there transport to Pemba passes daily. 2.2. with teachers. TABLE 5 MESSANO SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE Sector Education Infrastructure Comment Operational. Nearest health post in Mucojo (only 3 km). 52% were female.4. just outside of both Figures 7 and 8) There is occasional transport to reach public transport at Mucojo and Macomia. the village is quite new (established in 1969) and was previously situated a kilometre or more inland. The area is. In addition. there is also widespread participation in more traditional religious practices. Immediately to the south of Messano there is a coconut plantation (apparently not commercially used). The social infrastructure of Messano is summarised in Table 5. recently built and in good condition Primary and half of secondary curriculum taught. but these data may have been complicated by polygamy. which are both relatively abundant and accessible. the water retreating about 700 m at low spring tide. as well as with the islands in the southern Quirimbas Archipelago. Details of activities and responsibilities by gender are summarised in Table 6. Details were not divulged but key people. and Pemba some 180 km to the south of Macomia (reached by tarred road). Gender Of the economically active persons (note that this did not include old persons or children) 48% were male. The village was never attacked. the village also has many coconut palms amongst the houses.3. Six percent of houses (the highest of all the three study villages) were found to have people with no economic activity (i. The village is situated right on the coast. including initiation and particular ceremonies to assure good results from productive activities. Health No health infrastructure or personnel. similar to Maueia. Sanitation No latrines in the village except at the school. From Mucojo the district capital (Macomia) is a further 45 km to the west (reached by unsurfaced road). In addition.3 Ecological setting Land immediately surrounding Messano is very sandy. with very few ‘outsiders’ in the village. primarily due to unproductive sandy soils. or chart (Figure 8)). due east of Mucojo. more exposed to north-westerly winds.e. The beach in front of Messano is sandy with a very flat profile. In the absence of transport the only way to reach Mucojo is on foot. although some families left for the security of Pemba and Maputo. similar to data for the rural areas of the province as a whole (Table 1). 2. both between the community and the hinterland. and others arrived from more vulnerable nearby communities. making it unsuitable for reliable agricultural production. A sandy track connects the village to Mucojo (administrative post) about 3 km distant. All of the village residents are Muslims.1 Geographic setting The geographic setting of Messano is shown in Figures 7 and 8. The beach is protected from the south east (from where the strongest winds blow) by Ponta Pabula and Baixo Zala.3 MESSANO Messano is the largest of the three study villages and is situated about 20 km north of Darumba. One school of brick and mortar construction. The old village is visible in Figure 7 (written as Massano). Livelihoods in Messano are extremely dependent on marine resources. such as the community leader (a male figure of traditional authority) were clearly held in high esteem. Culture Apart from the Muslim faith and its attendant ceremonies. The dependency ratio for households was estimated as 2. on the south side of a flat sandy area which floods at high tide (not shown on map (Figure 7). There is no phone or electricity in either Messano or Mucojo – the nearest phone is at Macomia. Messano was surprisingly unaffected (directly) by the civil war. tracks connect Mucojo to the neighbouring village of Nambo (visible in Figure 7) and Pangani (to the north. Like Maueia. totally dependent on outside support). All agriculture is undertaken in the area behind the village. towards Mucojo and the previous location of Massano.3. Agriculture in the area is described as poor.2 Social setting Almost all of the population of Messano are from the Mwani tribal group.

made possible by the protected and shallow nature of the beach. trapezium and C. The most common molluscs harvested are the bivalve Pteriidae (Figure 9) and the gastropods P. The situation is attributed to excessive pressure due to the overexploitation of fish stocks in Nampula and Tanzania. 2002). mollusc resources in the intertidal zone appear to be degraded. 88 . The intertidal resources are easily accessed from the beach on foot.Figure 11 A pile of discarded mollusc shells outside a house in Messano. Marine resources are divided into those in the intertidal zone (bivalves. Messano has rapidly expanding seaweed production. Unique amongst the study villages. being these accessible to artisanal fisheries) are on the edge of collapse’. and subsequent migrations of fishers (Governo da Província de Cabo Delgado. As with the other two community studies. as well as the Zala reef. ramosus and sea cucumbers were becoming more difficult to find and are ‘probably over-exploited’ (Frontier. including areas where oysters are sought and seaweed Figure 12 Commonly harvested molluscs. ramosus (Figure 12). whose baseline documents maintain that the current status of resources is actually critical: ‘At the moment. 1998). The other fisheries resources being typically diverse (see list in Annex 3). Fishing grounds extend beyond the immediate littoral zone to the islands of Quifula and Mogudula. 1998). Coral resources at the island of Mogundula were described in 1998 as in good condition (Frontier. the fisheries in the coastal area of the PNQ (fisheries in the coastal areas. The area falls within the forthcoming Quirimbas National Park. trapezium and C. and it was also reported that both C. octopus) and the fish resources associated with the reef system. P. ramosus.

drag-net fishing) and the intertidal resources on the nearly islands require a boat and a journey of up to 10 – 15 km.5 Political setting The administrative and political structure of the village is similar to that of Maueia and Darumba. but two (better stocked) shops are found at Nambo a few hundred metres to the north. cultivated (Figure 13). Finance There is no financial infrastructure in either Messano.3. A summary of household productive assets is also presented in Table 6. particularly those returning with food or clothing to sell. 2. There is a head (man) elected by the people. and participation in these is detailed in Table 6. The general strategy is more diversified than in any of the other study villages. All the capture fisheries resources (except kitanda. friends or (more often) traders. with only 9% of households involved in only one (or less) productive activity. who is recognised by local. Some traders also take products to inland markets including Montepuez. The primary markets for fish products from Messano are the working shop (which has an ice box and works as a buying post for the same company which owns the cold store in Darumba) and Macomia (dried fish). There are also longstanding commercial links with Tanzania through traders coming south or going north. Mucojo or Macomia – the nearest bank is again in Pemba (at least a day’s travel). Credit sources are therefore focused upon other informal sources including family. Commercial links Messano has signs of very strong commercial links in the past. district and provincial 89 . 2.Figure 13 Fresh and dried seaweed. The high participation in seaweed culture should be noted.3.4 Economic setting Messano has three principle economic opportunities: fishing. Currently only one of these operates (basic food commodities only). agriculture. and trading. including large shops built by Indian traders prior to independence.

intertidal resources. There is only one seaweed buyer. 2. which are reported to be progressively declining.6 Vulnerabilities and risks faced by the community The principle vulnerabilities and risks faced by the community in Messano are: Drought Health risks Agricultural land is poor and drought can wipe out crops. river Land: Poor local land Ethnic group Religion Fishing Agriculture Trading Transport Employee (in village) Shell collector None (dependant) Mwani Islam 59% 24% 10% 2% 2% 2% 2% Messano Aquatic resources: Sheltered sand coralline banks. The head man answers to the head of the administrative post in Mucojo.4 SUMMARY TABLE 6 STUDY VILLAGE COMPARISON TABLE Maueia Natural resource access Aquatic resources: Exposed rock/coralline based resources. looking from the water’s edge at low tide back towards the village. though it is most unlikely that the village did not have one.3. Hyenas have been known to enter the village and attack (and kill). OJM (youth) and internal security.administration. There have been five health epidemics since 1975 (including scabies. No reference was made to the village executive council. Animals (monkeys) eat crops at planting and harvest (not nearly as acute as Darumba). malaria. zone suitable for seaweed culture Land: Poor local land Ethnic group Religion Fishing Agriculture Trader Artisan None (dependant) Seaweed culture Mwani Islam 47% 28% 17% 4% 2% 2% Community social composition Livelihood opportunities (% figures show households with this as primary activity) 90 . Poor households have higher dependence on intertidal bivalve resources. cholera and tuberculosis). 2. Poor agriculture Figure 14 Messano beach panorama – 180° panorama. intertidal molluscs Land: Reasonable accessible land for cultivation Ethnic group Religion Agriculture Charcoal Fish Employment (external) None (dependant) Artisan Trader Macua Islam 65% 14% 9% 5% 3% 3% 1% Darumba Aquatic resources: Sheltered sand coralline banks. There are representatives of the national political organisations OMM (women). and the dependence on the company is getting progressively stronger (important in the light of poor agriculture). attributed to lethal yellowing disease. and viable livelihoods therefore must include other productive activities. intertidal resources. Crop disease Declining resources Animals eating crops Animal encroachment Single seaweed market Coconut productivity is on the decline. Agriculture is seldom capable of supplying basic household consumption needs.

part-time fishers 54 No. part-time fishers n/a No. households with fishers 32 (53) Population 510 (437) No.3 Principle decisions M What to plant  Use of stored product  How any cash spent  Other agricultural issues  Children’s schooling  Schooling materials  Repairs to house  Animal husbandry  Children’s schooling  F H  H       Population est. 903 (1154) No.TABLE 6 (CONTINUED) Maueia Livelihood strategies (% figures show households with these primary and secondary activities) Agriculture +Charcoal 13% +Employment (external) 8% +Fishing 5% +Artisan 3% +Trading 2% +No secondary activity 33% Charcoal +Agriculture 8% +Fishing 6% Fish +Agriculture 8% +Charcoal 2% External Employment +Agriculture 3% +No secondary activity 3% None 3% Artisan +Agriculture 1% +No secondary activity 2% Trader +No secondary activity 1% Darumba Fishing +Agriculture +Shell collection +Trading +No secondary activity Agriculture +Fishing +Trading +No secondary activity Trading +Agriculture +Fishing +No secondary activity Transport +Trading None Shell collector +Agriculture Employee (in village) +No secondary activity Messano 20% 14% 10% 16% 14% 4% 6% 2% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% Fishing +Agriculture 40% +Seaweed culture 4% +Trading 2% Agriculture +Fishing 9% +Seaweed culture 9% +No secondary activity 6% +Octopus collection 2% Trading +Agriculture 15% +Fishing 2% Artisan +Agriculture 2% +Seaweed culture 2% None (dependant) 2% Seaweed culture +Agriculture 2% Note: 68% of households involved with seaweed culture (as primary. households 186 (126) No. full-time fishers 63 91 . households 130 (213) No. secondary or lesser activity) Gender roles Key: M/F Male/Female  Common H Rare  Never Principle occupation Fishing Agriculture Charcoal Firewood cutting External employment Artisan Trade Mollusc collection M  H      H F    H     F     H    Principle occupation Fishing Agriculture Trade Transport Mollusc collection Employee Thatch cutting M  H   H  H F   H     Principle occupation Fishing (vessel) Fishing (dragnet) Agriculture Trade Artisan Mollusc collection Employee Thatch cutting Seaweed culture Principle decisions What to plant Selling of agricultural product Giving away of stocks (to family) Children’s schooling Schooling materials Repairs to house M  H H   H  H H M       F    H      F   H    Principle decisions M What to plant   When to plant1 Size of plot  Other agricultural issues  Giving away of stocks (to family)  Selling of agricultural produce  Schooling materials  Repairs to house  Demography2. full-time fishers 124 Population est. households 210 (370) No. 624 (837) No.

Maueia data have been estimated by this study. 2 1997 census data in parenthesis. Others appear to have a male head when the man is in reality split between 2–4 households. 4 Data severely compromised by polygamy.9 Messano Average household Dependency Ratio % Houses with no economically active person Female4 (no male) Male (no female) Canoes Sail canoes Large sail boat Nets Hooks Spear Traps Mask/fins Cycle Agricultural tools 4.6 1. when they are in reality supported by a man.TABLE 6 (CONTINUED) Maueia Household human assets Average household Dependency ratio % Houses with no economically active person Female4 (no male) Male (no female) Canoes Sail canoes Nets Hooks Traps Cycle Agricultural tools5 4. 3 Fisher data from IDPPE survey 9/01 (did not cover Maueia). 5 Considered to be an underestimate. Some households appear female-headed. other data are primarily from this study.4 2% 18% 5% 9% 1% 5% 3% 9% 2% 77% 0% 6% 10% 49% 8% 18% 25% 4% 10% 18% 10% 49% 6% 23% 11% 0% 28% 13% 30% 34% 0% 6% 0% 13% 91% Household productive assets Vulnerabilities and risks War Drought Over-exploitation of intertidal resources War Animal incursion in agricultural plots Health Major market is a single fish buyer Animal incursion in village Health Outsiders Weather Export dependence (seaweed).6 Darumba Average household Dependency Ratio % Houses with no economically active person Female4 (no male) Male (no female) Canoes Sail canoes Nets Hooks Spear Traps Mask/fins Cycle Agricultural tools5 4.3 2. In the absence of latrines it would be very unusual to find a household without a simple agricultural ‘enxada’ (hand hoe used to bury faeces). 92 .8 2. with single buyer ‘Lethal yellowing’ of coconut plants 1 Described as ‘a community decision’.

2002). although. It is interesting to note that ownership of nets is considered a contributor to a better livelihood. MAUEIA Issues considered to contribute towards household poverty • Laziness. It is of interest to note that no issues are directly related to fisheries. Table 8 also shows the asset ownership by ‘poverty’ classification. MAUEIA Primary activity Agriculture Artisan Charcoal External employment Fishing None (dependent) Trader Grand total A1 24% 3% 10% 5% 3% 0% 1% 47% B 14% 0% 2% 0% 3% 0% 0% 19% C 27% 0% 3% 0% 3% 3% 0% 34% Assets Paddle canoe Sail canoe Nets Hook and line Spear gun Traps Large sailboat Mask and Fins A 4% 0% 3% 2% 0% 6% 0% 0% B 3% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% C 3% 0% 1% 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 1 classification:A. 3. In other words. The data show clearly that those involved in charcoal production are considered as having better livelihoods than those not. It is.1 OVERVIEW OF POVERTY According to the UNDP Human Development Report (2002).3 POOR STAKEHOLDERS TABLE 7 POVERTY CRITERIA. B. C. valid to observe that in the community there are households that are considered better and worse off than others. The Human Poverty Index for Cabo Delgado province (1997) was 67. Much emphasis was placed during the ranking process on willingness and ability to work as an important poverty criteria. 93 . 53% of the households surveyed in Maueia fall into the two most disadvantaged groups. however. all households in the community are poor and disadvantaged by global standards. and a ‘poor stakeholder’ is considered to be any stakeholder in the community. and that there appears to be no clear correlation between the classification and vessel ownership. although they are clearly implied through the preference for diversified livelihoods. it is considered reasonable to assume that these indicators are generally applicable to the study area in question. the study villages are all in the poorest province in one of the poorest countries of the world. Neither fishing nor agriculture guarantee freedom from poverty – both disadvantaged and less disadvantaged households can be involved with these activities.8 and the composite standard of living deprivation 75. especially if there are opportunities for productive work • Many persons in the household • Illness/injury (inability to work) • Dependence on others • Disorganised household • No man in the household • Polygamous household • Old age Issues considered to alleviate household poverty • Hardworking • Ability to clear a large plot for cultivation • Diversification of productive activities • External employment 3. cross tabulated against primary household activity. The classification of all households is set out in Table 8. below reasonable livelihood. reasonable livelihood. following the ranking methodology set out in the guidelines (IMM and SPEECH. In the absence of any further data.5% – in both cases the province with the worst indicators in the country. Mozambique ranks near the bottom of the Low Human Development countries as the sixth poorest county in the world. 1999) putting the province as a whole under the widely accepted poverty line of $360 per capita per year. and this was investigated during the field work. as indicated above.2 MAUEIA Contributors to local poverty (used as factors by the community in ranking households) are set out in Table 7. The real GDP per capita for the whole of Cabo Delgado province was estimated as $143 per year in 1998 (UNDP. TABLE 8 CROSS-TABULATIONS OF POVERTY RANK. The communities as a whole are all poor by global standards. above reasonable livelihood.

in spite of the fact that Messano was clearly the least poor of the three study villages. TABLE 11 POVERTY CRITERIA. it was only in Messano that it was specifically mentioned as a positive livelihood criteria. above reasonable livelihood. B. while fisheries are associated with improved livelihoods. C.3 DARUMBA The criteria used in the ranking of households in Darumba are shown in Table 9. Fishing was clearly seen as an important part of a reasonable livelihood. below reasonable livelihood. The use of hook and line (usually used over reef resources) is clearly associated with poverty. 76% of households fall into groups b and c. B. below reasonable livelihood. 3. It is surprising that the ownership of nets appears to be positively correlated with poverty. DARUMBA Primary activity Agriculture Employee (cold-store) Fish None (dependent) Shell collector Trader Transport Grand total A1 4% 2% 31% 2% 2% 4% 2% 47% B 4% 0% 20% 0% 0% 2% 0% 25% C 16% 0% 8% 0% 0% 4% 0% 27% Assets Paddle canoe Sail canoe Nets Hook and Line Spear gun Traps Large sailboat Mask and Fins A 18% 6% 4% 6% 4% 2% 0% 10% B 14% 2% 4% 8% 0% 4% 0% 4% C 18% 0% 0% 12% 0% 4% 0% 4% 1 classification:A. Table 12 shows the classification of all households surveyed by activity and against asset ownership. C. MESSANO Issues considered to alleviate household poverty • Ownership of larger sailing sailing vessel (dau/mashua/ngongo) • Involvement in trading • Remittances from external family Issues considered to contribute towards household poverty • • • • No man in household Polygamous household Small agricultural plot No involvement in fishing TABLE 12 CROSS-TABULATIONS OF POVERTY RANK. Table 10 shows the classification of all village households surveyed by primary activity and also against asset ownership. The ownership of a sailing canoe and nets is likewise associated with better livelihoods. DARUMBA Issues considered to alleviate household poverty • • • • Youth Good health Ownership of fishing gear Employment in a beach seine group Issues considered to contribute towards household poverty • High dependence on agriculture • Ill health TABLE 10 CROSS-TABULATIONS OF POVERTY RANK. ability to work (good health) was considered fundamental.3. As with Darumba. above reasonable livelihood. agriculture is seen as a poor livelihood. 94 . TABLE 9 POVERTY CRITERIA.4 MESSANO The criteria used in Messano for classification of households are shown in Table 11. The corollary of the fact that dependence on agriculture is considered to contribute to poverty was clearly that dependence on fishing (the principal activity in the village) is considered to be beneficial. reasonable livelihood. as is mask and fins (used for sea cucumber and mbande (shell opercula) collection). MESSANO Primary activity Agriculture Fish None Seaweed Artisan Trader Grand total A1 2% 13% 0% 0% 2% 6% 23% B 4% 19% 0% 0% 2% 11% 36% C 21% 15% 2% 2% 0% 0% 40% Assets Paddle canoe Sail canoe Nets Hook and Line Spear gun Traps Large sailboat Mask and Fins A 0% 6% 6% 6% 0% 2% 11% 0% B 0% 17% 11% 21% 0% 0% 0% 0% C 0% 4% 13% 6% 0% 4% 2% 0% 1 classification:A. Here agriculture is clearly associated with poverty. and trading is perceived as a positive contribution. Although external remittances has the smallest contribution to household benefit of the three villages (see Table 14). As with Maueia. reasonable livelihood.

For a small number of households (2%) in Darumba. Involvement in fishing is more varied. These resources can be grouped under five headings: natural. 47 and 9% of households engaged in fishing as their primary occupation in Darumba. as well as octopus. 11 and 10% in Darumba.1. with 59. where dependency on fishing and reef resources is low (see Annex 2). shell collection was identified as the primary activity. human and social resources is summarised in Table 13 and described in more detail in the following sections (4. The majority of households in all three communities engage in some exploitation of the accessible intertidal resources. 4.2). These direct influencing structures and processes emanate from government. Sea cucumber and larger gastropods are also extracted from deeper water areas in Darumba and Messano. and to coping with the risks and vulnerabilities associated with indirect influencing factors (Section 4.1–4. focusing on reef benefits to household resources (Section 4. the private sector and society. on the nearby protected reef flats in Darumba and Messano. lobsters and molluscs from intertidal areas. The greatest diversity of species is exploited at Messano. possibly an ancient reef. to 57% in Darumba and 25% in Maueia (Table 14). These outcome changes are best defined and measured by the communities themselves if they are to meaningfully represent positive improvements in their lives. by contributing to positive changes in the outcomes of their livelihoods. Collection also takes place in intertidal areas.1. financial. we refer to these as the indirect influencing factors.5) 4. Open sea and riverine fisheries fall into the latter category. environmental and policy context in which the poor exist. The benefit accruing from these fisheries is not easily separated from that accruing from reef-based fisheries. They in turn interact with the longer-term and periodically catastrophic background changes that affect the social. It should be noted that throughout this analysis it has been difficult to separate the benefit that is gained from fisheries and marine-related activities that are reef-related from those which are not (or are very much less) reef-related.1 Natural resources The main fishing areas accessible to the three communities are over reef areas. In addition the reef can enhance the way the communities interact with the structures and processes that directly influence the way they access and use their resources. social and human. The following sections describe the many different streams of benefits to the livelihoods of three study communities. with additional households also involved as secondary activities (18. protecting agricultural land and property.4 REEF LIVELIHOODS 4. where part of the fish catch (~40%) and the shrimp catch is from the river. followed by Darumba and finally Maueia. to enhancing interactions with direct influencing factors (Section 4. 95 . Messano and Maueia respectively). and both of these are practised in the study villages (especially Darumba and Messano).1). The coral reef ecosystem is characterised by high biodiversity and productivity. All three communities received some degree of physical protection in this way. Some of these benefits arise because reefs can contribute to the resources that the communities have access to. These reef-related resources contribute to the building blocks of the livelihoods of the communities and ultimately to the livelihood outcomes that they aspire to. with the exception of Darumba.2 Physical resources Offshore coral reefs are important barriers against wave action and erosion on the coastline. cultivated in the shallow sandy intertidal areas. All three communities exploit a diversity of demersal fish species from the reef. The services that the reef provides to the communities ultimately benefits them. physical. The reef also has the potential to directly contribute to the livelihood strategies that the communities adopt to use the resources they can access. which provide a wide range of options for exploitation.1. ranging from 95% of households in Maueia and Darumba to an estimated 70% of households in Messano.1 RESOURCES The contribution from the reef to natural.1. and on the coralline rock plateau at Maueia (Figure 15). The perceived contribution of fisheries resources to overall household benefit varied from 58% in Messano. economic. physical.3). Where appropriate throughout the following sections story boxes have been included to illustrate points of view expressed by groups or individuals in the study communities. Coral reefs have the potential to provide a stream of benefits to the three coastal communities studied in Cabo Delgado. In Messano. although at Maueia protection was largely afforded by the coralline rock plateau. Messano and Maueia respectively. to respond to the structures and processes that influence them and to cope with the background context in which they operate. this figure also includes seaweed. These benefits are largely associated with the reef resource. financial.

controlled partially by women Source of ‘foreign exchange’ Sea cucumber and opercula of large gastropod used as convertible currency for travellers and migrants to Tanzania Exchange Dried fish exchanged at inland markets for food products and clothing Human Protein from fish Fish supplies 19–24% of internally consumed household benefit Protein from intertidal mollusc resources Important protein resource for those with no access to fish or animal proteins (femaleheaded households. especially asset ownership Fishing provides a sense of identity 1 Ma. (Ms) Ms Ms. Maueia. Ms. D All All All D (possibly others) All Ms All All 96 . accessible to and used by most households Protection of coast Reef affords varying degrees of protection against wave action Protection results in sand flats suitable for seaweed cultivation Source for lime Coral burnt for lime production (not frequent) Building material Large gastropod shells used for house construction Coral used for house construction Navigation Reef provides key reference for position and fishing grounds Financial Cash sales from fish Fishing contributes 34–38% of cash income (Ms. D Ms. D Ms All All D.TABLE 13 A SUMMARY OF REEF BENEFITS TO HOUSEHOLD RESOURCES Resources Natural Benefits from the reef Diverse resource Diversity of demersal fish on reef habitat Small gastropods Larger gastropods and sea cucumbers Intertidal resources. D). D.) Knowledge Fishing valued as skill and knowledge Social Traditional practices Some items originating from reef used in traditional cures Collaborative extraction Women go to harvest intertidal resources together Women go to harvest seaweed together Status Fishing considered a status activity. D All Physical All Ms All Ms. Village(s)1 All Ma Ms. and 10% in Ma Cash sale from molluscs Cash from sale of molluscs controlled partially by women (infrequent commercial use in other study villages) Cash sale from seaweed Cash from sale of seaweed making significant contribution. etc. Messano. Darumba.

which are exploited for seaweed cultivation. and has currently produced a total of 78 tons of dry seaweed for export. and less than 10% of houses in Messano. established in 1999. Figure 16 Gastropod shells and coral rubble in house construction in Messano. TABLE 14 PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION TO OVERALL HOUSEHOLD WELL-BEING Contribution to overall household well-being (%)2 Fish Shells and octopus Sea cucumber and deep water shells Seaweed Shrimp Agriculture Charcoal Trading Extended family Artisan Thatch cutting Livestock Maueia 15 10 0 0 0 39 13 2 13 8 0 0 Darumba 301 14 3 0 10 26 0 0 10 0 8 0 Messano 30 9 3 16 0 26 0 8 1 6 4 3 1 ~40% of fish catch in Darumba from river. This use is now infrequent with less than 5% of houses whitewashed with lime in Darumba and Maueia. At Messano.Figure 15 Intertidal collection in Maueia. Seaweed cultivation began only recently. The reef is also used as a source of lime for whitewash. Large gastropod shells (Darumba. 97 . This offers an important opportunity for the livelihoods of the Messano community. protection provided by the reefs and offshore islands has resulted in shallow sand flats adjacent to the village. made from gastropod shells (in Darumba and Messano) and from quarried coral rock (Maueia). 2 Refer to Annex 1 for explanation. with 68% of all households engaged in seaweed cultivation and 17% of households considering it their primary or secondary activity. Messano: 50% of households) and coral rubble (Messano: 65% of households) are also used as a building material for house construction (Figure 16).

with agricultural households heavily dependent due to low soil productivity. Formerly a network of rural buying and processing posts existed for the export of sea cucumber. However. there is no alternative navigating aid but the reef and sand bars. in all communities. 1 ~40% of fish catch in Darumba from river. Dependence is particularly high for agricultural households. who face high risks associated with animal damage to crops.1. mollusc collection guarantees some animal protein. Little by little.1. households expressed that fish and shells were needed ‘to make a meal’. Some say the price in Masasi is even higher. where they are exchanged for other agricultural food products and clothing. rather than it being common to individual household strategies. In Darumba and Messano. maybe a carrier bag full or two. specialised traders undertake this exchange. i. Likewise in the communities of Darumba and Messano. in Messano an estimated 92% of households derive cash income from reef-based sources. In Messano. For households not involved in charcoal-making (the main source of cash in Maueia). BOX 1 REEF RESOURCES AS A SOURCE OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE ‘Here it can be difficult to get (Tanzanian) shillings and persons travelling to Tanzania often collect Mbande over a period before their journey. an estimated 93% TABLE 15 ESTIMATED CONTRIBUTIONS TO HOUSEHOLD INCOME Contribution to household income (%) Fish Shells and octopus Sea cucumber and deep water shells Seaweed Shrimp Agriculture Charcoal Trading Extended family Artisan Thatch cutting Livestock Maueia 10 6 0 0 0 18 29 5 14 19 0 0 Darumba 381 7 6 0 18 0 0 0 15 0 16 0 Messano 34 6 4 25 0 0 0 12 1 9 6 4 of households derive cash income from the sale of reef products. Apart from landmarks on shore. even in the poorest of households and dependence on mollusc resources increases in those households without a fisher. where the use of the marine resources is comparatively less. dried fish is taken to local inland markets at Montepuez. In Maueia.4 Human resources Reef and intertidal resources provide an important source of food and protein in the diet of all three communities (Table 16). Fishing activities are also a source of cash used to pay for seasonal agricultural labour. dependence on mollusc resources for protein increased in female-headed TABLE 16 ESTIMATED CONTRIBUTION TO INTERNALLY CONSUMED BENEFIT Contribution to internally consumed benefit (%) Fish Shells and octopus Sea cucumber and deep water shells Shrimp Agriculture Extended family Livestock Maueia 19 14 0 0 56 11 0 Darumba 241 20 0 2 50 5 0 Messano 22 16 1 0 58 1 2 1 ~40% of fish catch in Darumba from river. In Darumba. situated between the Rovuma River and Mtwara. 4. 98 .Finally. overexploitation of this resource led to its collapse in the mid 1990s.e. sea cucumbers and gastropod opercula (locally known as Mbande) are used as a source of convertible currency when travelling to Tanzania (Box 1). Here. Although the number of households involved in this activity is few.3 Financial resources The reef and associated resources are important sources of cash income in all three communities (Table 15). the reef and sand bars provide key reference points in navigating and in locating fishing grounds. they take a dau or ngongo north and on arriving in Msimbati 1 there are people there who buy the Mbande for good money and you use the cash to pay for the the rest of your journey. In Maueia 10% of households derive their cash income from the sale of fish.’ Messano 1 A common port of desembarkation in Tanzania for trade and travellers from Mozambique. female-headed households (18% of households) and poorer households with no main secondary activity apart from agriculture (36% of households). Also in Darumba and Messano. thus all fishers depend on this benefit. their dependence on the benefit is high. When they have enough. Similarly. the contribution of fisheries products as a source of cash income is greater. 4.

institutions. are typically undertaken collaboratively and mainly by women. who run the cold store in Darumba and the icebox in Messano. Regulations also control minimum mesh sizes and prohibit coral mining in an attempt to prevent damage and ensure sustainability of the reef and fisheries resources. except that reefs and reef resources are the focus of national and international attention and hence stimulate policy development. reef-related resources. including the collection of molluscs and seaweed cultivation. implementation is difficult and thus the potential benefits derived are minimal. These activities represent one of the few opportunities for women to engage in conversation with other women away from their houses and in the absence of men. while 68% of households in Messano undertake seaweed cultivation. thereby ensuring the reef resource is safeguarded from larger-scale commercial exploitation. Similarly. respectively). although between us we spend more time on agriculture than any other activity. the primary use of fish is for food and only the excess is sold. not a farmer or charcoal burner.2 DIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS Coral reef and associated coastal and marine resources are the focus of fisheries and environment-related policies. have been the target of Africa Commercial. and provides local secure high value markets for fish products. therefore. undertaken to assure good results from fisheries activities.m. the fisher will participate more frequently in fishing than any of the other household activities. rather than a farmer or charcoal burner. 4. the reef and associated resources give rise to structures and processes that can positively influence the lives of poor reefdependent people. For example. Regulations have included the protection of near-shore fisheries resources (up to 1 mile from the coast) for the artisanal fishers. Fishing activities are generally considered as a status activity for those households involved in all communities. with the limited representation of provincial institutions.1.2. organisations and social relations. Thus. which in reality contribute more income (Box 2). In Messano. While the existence of a reasonable legislative framework for reef resources management clearly exists. who are principally involved in this activity. Directly and indirectly. In all communities.1 Policies It is difficult to say that the reef makes a contribution to beneficial policy. such as sand and shells were used in traditional cures. near-shore reef resources have been the focus of fisheries policies implemented through marine fisheries regulations. although it was not divulged due to a lack of willingness to expose information on traditional practices outside the Muslim faith. the associated skills in fishing and knowledge of fish species is a significant and valued human resource in all three communities.2. Thus fishing may be considered as the primary household activity and the household head will consider himself a fisher. seaweed cultivation has also become a source of knowledge and skills.households (6% and 23% of households. These opportunities have been supported by policies promoting market development.4). These positive influences are summarised in Table 17 and discussed in more detail in the following sections (4. a variety of fish products. A diversity of reef products offers opportunities for local communities to access high value export-orientated markets. the government through its provision of a monopoly licence to the seaweed buyer GENU BOX 2 FISHERIES AS A SENSE OF IDENTITY ‘The greatest contributor to my house is charcoal. This may have also been the case in other villages. In general it is the reef and reef users who are the intended beneficiaries of such policies. This relatively recent development.5 Social resources Intertidal activities. even just for an hour or less to check my traps. with added status in Darumba and Messano if a household owns a fishing vessel (57 and 41% of households. ready to go to the machamba or to cut wood for charcoal. 4. fishing activities were strongly associated with sense of identity amongst fishers. But I go fishing every day of the year weather permitting. Women from almost all households in Maueia and up to 70% of households in Darumba and Messano engage in mollusc collection. respectively).1–4. providing an important source of cash to obtain other food stuffs during the low season for agriculture. I might be back home by 6 a. which have focused on safeguarding near-shore resources for the small-scale sector and ensuring sustainability of the fisheries. For those involved in fisheries activities. You ask who I am? I am a fisherman. although there was some evidence that special ceremonies are 4. particularly amongst the women. including reef fish and lobsters. In all three study communities little evidence was encountered that the reef plays a role in traditional ceremonial practices. In Messano. has been supported indirectly by policies promoting high value fisheries products from the artisanal sector.2. Even in Maueia where fishing may not be a primary ‘earning’ activity in a household..’ Maueia 99 . In Darumba.

fish) Major international buyer of seaweed with agent in village providing guaranteed market Credit Credit from traders on basis of future production secures fishers livelihood Commercial circuits Important commercial circuit: fish from coast to the inland. Messano. D. Darumba. D Ms. but all coastal resources) All Ms D. crops/clothing from inland to the coast Ms. especially important for women. D All All All Village(s)1 Influencing factors Policies Institutions Marketing Local and hinterland markets for dried/roast fish Access to urban market for higher value products Access to tourism market for fish Local buyer of high value products (shrimp. D Ms Organisations Village organisation Key person on village council responsible for all fisheries issues (not just reef-based) NGOs Local NGO with very limited micro credit programme D Ma Social relations Access Open and easy access to intertidal resources provides opportunities for all. Ms.TABLE 17 A SUMMARY OF REEF BENEFITS TO DIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS Benefits from the reef Artisanal fisheries exclusive zone 1 mile from coast reserved for artisanal fisheries. but at the cost of over-exploitation All 1 Ma. Protects artisanal fisheries (and reef resources) Habitat protection and recognition of national and global value Quirimbas National Park in early stages of implementation Coral mining prohibited by law Minimum mesh sizes limited by law Policy to support higher value fishery products Improving market development for higher value products Exclusive seaweed buyer Government granted exclusive (monopoly) licence to GENU Community management Increasing formal recognition of communities’ role in resource management (not directly reef-related. Maueia. lobster. Ms Ms. D All Ma Ma Ms. 100 .

e. the shallow intertidal waters sheltered by the reef.3 Organisation Like village-level institutions. . However. providing. This arrangement is most prevalent amongst fishers who own gear (i. As described in earlier sections.2. providing access to fishing gear and subsistence during low fishing periods in return for tied production. recently resulting in the establishment of the Quirimbas National Park with support from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). In Maueia.2. as described above (Section 4. In Messano. All three study communities market dried or roasted fish locally or in the hinterland and in Darumba and Messano the exchange of dried fish with inland communities is an important commercial circuit moving fish inland and agricultural crops and clothing to the coast. mollusc and octopus resources can be collected directly on foot from the intertidal reef flat and sand bars (Darumba and Messano) and the coralline rock plateau (Maueia). comprises the key person or ‘head fisher’ on the village council. with local management of the fishery.2. . have permitted seaweed cultivation. Benefits to local communities will depend on their participation in decision-making and will likely be mixed with some costs associated with the closure of fishing grounds.42/kg of first grade fish and $0. who supports the local fishing community through a limited micro credit scheme.13/kg of dried seaweed) and provide an important source of cash sales. and secondly with the welfare of the local fishers. the shallow sand bars protected by the reefs are also accessible for seaweed cultivation. However. high value fish products can access nearby market outlets in the urban centre of Pemba and tourist hotels. the park will make things better for us. 4.2.BOX 3 QUIRIMBAS NATIONAL PARK ‘We don’t have any problem with the (Quirimbas) park. access by cycle or via traders. including: ordering and collecting fishing gear from Pemba. but how will they manage?’ Messano has promoted a guaranteed market and price for seaweed. and GENU in Messano.3). the reef and near-shore resources and the small-scale fisheries they support are the source of a range of different markets which are key local institutions. the young and elderly. who is responsible for all fisheries issues. and identifying and informing others of fishing zones. 4. in Maueia. The first. As mentioned in the previous section (Section 4.’ Darumba ‘What park? We were not consulted here . At Messano. that might be a good idea. however. Women from over 65% of households in all three study communities are involved in intertidal mollusc collection and in Messano in seaweed cultivation (Figure 17). Among the nearby communities of Darumba and Messano. which began in 1997.They spoke of areas outside of our normal fishing grounds. Lets see. These activities are particularly important to women. high value fish products and seaweed also support the presence of Africa Commercial in Darumba and Messano.1. The second relevant organisation was in Darumba and comprised the local NGO Amoder. If what they promise is true.1). You say they will try to reduce incoming migrants. giving them some level control over the household’s income. although this is not guaranteed as some women hand over cash revenues to their husbands. 4. there are currently mixed opinions of the value of the national park (Box 3). there is an almost total absence of village organisations. concerned firstly. which locals can 101 . the reef and near-shore resources and associated fisheries were found to be the focus of two local organisations. Some people came here to talk about it and from what we understand it will not affect us directly. sources of cash income or mechanisms for exchange with inland communities. including women.2 Institutions In general there appears to be an almost total absence of effective provincial institutions at the village level and even at a provincial level there are few institutions with any impact on reef resources. In Messano and Darumba local fish traders are also a source of credit. 41% of households in Darumba and 62% of households in Messano) and dependence is likely to be more significant amongst poorer fishers. as well as other disadvantaged groups. providing food and cash security for those lacking in other resources or those lacking a main provider. Reef diversity is also the focus of international and national concerns for reef conservation. with the increasing recognition of communities’ role in fisheries resource and coastal management there is greater potential for the incorporation of local needs and aspirations in future management. Excess mollusc harvest and seaweed harvest provide opportunities for women to generate cash. An estimated 20% of fishers rely on the ‘head fisher’ in Maueia to assist in obtaining fishing gear.4 Social relations The accessibility of the intertidal resources provides opportunities for all members of the community to participate in harvest. which has brought considerable benefits to seaweed producers. which have driven policies promoting habitat protection. which offer fixed prices ($0. The aims of the national park are to promote rational usage and exclusion zones.

influenced by the seasonality of fishing. the three study villages are characterised by high seasonality of contributions to livelihoods. Critically.3). as well as other livelihood activities. enabling purchase of shortfalls. undertaken in parallel or sequentially in a single day Constancy Both capture fisheries. responding (partially) to reef resources Ability to absorb changes in other markets Contraction of sea cucumber market compensated for by increased fishing pressure and seaweed culture (Ms only) Trends Ms. D 1 Ma. particularly agriculture and also charcoal burning in Maueia. cephalopod and seaweed production not drastically affected by drought (major common vulnerability) Fallback position when agriculture decimated by wild animals Opportunities for cash income Fish serves as a source of cash to support primary needs Local markets for higher value products improving. gastropod. However. Ms.Figure 17 Women harvesting seaweed at Messano. 4.1 Seasonality In general.3. 102 .3. Darumba. In Messano. 4. TABLE 18 A SUMMARY OF REEF BENEFITS TOWARDS COPING WITH INDIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS Benefits from the reef Complementarity with other activities Both fishing and intertidal collection important activities when agriculture is low High fish production coincides with period of lowest agricultural stocks Also complementary with low in charcoal production Agriculture and fisheries as complementary activities. Maueia.3. and mollusc collection support livelihoods all year round (with variability. Messano.3 INDIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS The contribution of the reef and reef resources to the communities’ ability to cope with the risks or opportunities associated with the background factors of seasonality. but less so with molluscs) Seaweed culture possible all year round with little variability Village(s)1 All All Ma D. this seasonality is partly overcome through the complementarity of some contributions and the stability of others. the peak in fisheries production coincides with the period of lowest agricultural stocks. In all three villages fishing and intertidal collection provide key sources of food and cash when agriculture production is low and when charcoal production is low in Maueia. D. Ma Influencing factors Seasonality All Ms All Ms All D All All Shocks Ability to cushion shocks Intertidal resources important fallback for female-headed or decapitalised households Seaweed culture also important fallback for female headed or decapitalised households Fisheries. shocks and trends is summarised in Table 18 below and described in the following sections (4.1–4.

In their role in generating income.3. as a whole the relative constancy of near-shore marine resources provide stability to livelihoods. Indeed. our husbands paid for everything at home. Thus. In Messano.3. including seaweed culture are vital to the livelihoods of widows. Thus. the diversity and productivity of the reef resource compensated the loss. Our only alternative is to depend more on fishing and shell collecting for food and money to buy food. Almost all the households in Darumba have some involvement in agriculture. fishing activities can be carried out throughout the year. returning with cassava. satisfying household deficiencies for food (pre-agricultural harvest) and clothing (post-agricultural harvest). which not only represents an apparently secure and constant source of income. with cash from fisheries and seaweed used to purchase basic goods and pay for agricultural labour. Darumba BOX 5 OPPORTUNITIES OF SEAWEED CULTIVATION ‘Before the seaweed company came. by allowing fishers to shift to other options. flour. therefore. This diversity also provides stability with different market outlets offsetting price fluctuations in any single market. octopus and seaweed culture resources are unaffected by drought and so provide a critical food supply and sources of income to buy other basic food stuffs. On a daily cycle in Darumba and Messano. through seaweed culture. sugar or soap’. allowing them to be undertaken in parallel or sequentially throughout the day without conflict of time or resources. with intertidal collection providing a crucial fallback when fisheries are low.it was also noticed that more than 90% of households involved in fisheries. They also support those families abandoned by migration. elephants and warthogs.3 Trends Reef and near-shore resources are the principal source of cash income in nearly all households in Messano and Darumba and in 10% of households in Maueia. is also offset by seaweed cultivation activities. and others hand all of it over (to their husbands)’. and has been apparent in all three study villages to varying extents. The productivity and diversity of the reef resource also provides opportunities for market diversification and significantly options of high value products. thus the safety net provided by the fisheries resources is extensive. the diversified livelihoods and markets are highly interrelated and dependent. anything. This safety net has been exploited twice in the last 27 years in Messano and three times in the last 26 years in Maueia. periodic declines in fishery production. Despite a certain seasonality. but we have to share the harvest there each year with monkeys. there is also a high threat of invasion of elephants.2 Shocks The constancy of near-shore marine resources. After collecting oysters we will dry the meat on sticks and sell them in Macomia. This has enabled reef users to benefit both from existing local markets and from the trend in development of markets for higher value products. and households lacking labour for agriculture. such as the sea cucumber market in the mid-1990s. which provide a constant supply of cash throughout the year. 4. with the decline of markets. including female-headed households. In this way intertidal resources. 4. Messano 103 . but also the cash earned is partially controlled by women (Box 5). In Darumba. reef resources have been important in providing opportunities for increasing commercialisation of livelihoods. We have tried to chase them away using fire. Although some women are allowed by their husbands to keep all the money from seaweed selling. in Messano. especially when it comes to paying for the cost of education and medicines. but these days. in overcoming this loss and providing an alternative source of food and income (Box 4). due to weather patterns. drumming. there is also complementarity between agricultural and fisheries activities. BOX 4 REEF RESOURCES AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO AGRICULTURE ‘Our fertile land is on the other side of the river. seaweed cultivation or trading benefited from trading activities which followed and compensated fishery and agricultural cycles. The periodically serious impact of drought on agricultural production is also cushioned by local marine resources. combined with their accessibility provide key safety nets cushioning shocks to people’s livelihoods. but fail. In Messano. the role of seaweed culture in cash earning is becoming progressively more important. decapitalised households. we have some money of our own and we contribute to the household. offsetting the extreme variability in agriculture production. warthogs and monkeys which can decimate crops to 5% of the normal level. who become effectively temporarily female-headed and depend on the intertidal resources for protein consumption. Fisheries. as well as crucial. Sometimes they gave us some capulanas or other clothing. mollusc.

This has resulted in increased use of locally made gear and increased pressure on sea cucumber or intertidal resource collection. and conservation. although evidence suggested that participation was low. such as the seaweed cultivation at Messano. increasing local fishing pressure and. fisheries. with consequences for resource status as mentioned above. CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES With expanding commercialisation financial security of households has increased. The most significant changes. While implementation of the national park has yet to take place. Changes in the terms of trade between fish and fishing gear is linked to the performance of the Mozambican economy as a whole relative to foreign markets. have led to declines in intertidal mollusc and reef resources. 5. Food and income security are also threatened by the deteriorating access to fishing gear. Market development. Crown-of-Thorns starfish). causes and consequences that have affected livelihoods in the study villages are summarised in Table 19. the information is common to all study villages. as mentioned in earlier sections. that despite the generally perceived depletion of near-shore intertidal and sea cucumber resources in all three villages. has targeted high value fish. the potential impact for local communities is largely anticipated as a positive one. in spite of its apparent remoteness.5 CHANGE. In the absence of any other indication. 5. which impact upon the strategies households are able to adopt and the ultimate outcomes of those strategies. manifested in the establishment of the Quirimbas National Park (approved by Parliament in 2002). 104 . reef fisheries are perceived locally to be in good condition and have only been documented otherwise in reports. Together with natural impacts (e.g. even seaweed culture which is a direct result of the creation of a local market by an international seaweed processor. Migration out of the communities in response to changes in natural resource status is a possibility. dependence on the declining intertidal mollusc resources has dropped as households have shifted to seaweed and improved their financial and food security. Livelihoods are dynamic and are constantly changing in response to direct and indirect influencing factors. in the case of the declining sea cucumber resource. Major changes to reef-based livelihoods amongst the study communities fall into three main categories: natural resource status. 5. this may be at the cost of reduced food security. It is worth noting how much international issues and forces have started to influence livelihoods in the study area. brought about by rising local prices and consequent worsening terms of trade between fish and fishing gear. with greater ‘in-migration’ to the Quirimbas area from distant communities. It should be noted here. through improved community participation in resource management and improved resource status.2 FISHERIES Changes in the fisheries have been associated with the development of markets. open access. Almost all of the positive market developments are attributable to growing international linkages. there has been an emergence of efforts to conserve and manage the marine resource. Messano). as well as the lack of availability of fishing gear locally. Where viable alternatives exist. The Quirimbas National Park has had international support and aims to benefit from foreign investment and tourism. as well as deteriorating access to fishing gear. and fish is sold fresh rather than dried (Darumba.3 CONSERVATION In recognition of a perceived decline in pelagic and demersal resources (not encountered as a local perception amongst study communities). for export and local tourism markets. possibly motivated by resource depletion at distant sites. high market demand and availability of SCUBA technology. However. if well planned these could be avoided or compensated for.1 STATUS OF NATURAL RESOURCES Changes in the status of natural resources have been characterised by the decline and degradation of resources. as well as the potential for ecotourism focused on coral reefs and coastal resources. with cash being spent on non-food expenditures. Potential costs to local communities include possible restrictions on fishery activities and so livelihoods. As resources have become more scarce efforts to exploit them or alternative resources have increased. leading to further pressure on the existing resources and deteriorating household food security. El Niño. however.

issue applies to all study villages. not reported by study villages. D) • Devaluation and inflation has improved terms of trade of export business (Ms. D. individual investors and local communities 1 Note: Where no reference to location is made. • Open access • Strong local market (destined for export) • Use of higher technology (SCUBA) • Improved control of foreign investors • Declining resource Impacts on strategies and outcomes • More labour invested in collection • Adoption of alternatives. D) • Increased financial (and indirectly food) security • Possibly reduced food security (cash spend on non-food expenditure) • Reduced food security • Reduced financial security • Increased migration possible Decline in sea cucumber resources (Ms. D) Development of local higher value fish market • Growing accessible tourist market (Ma) • Improved links with international markets (Ms. also non-availability locally of gear Implementation of Quirimbas National Park (Ms. 105 . D) Degradation of reef resources3 (Ms. D) • Unknown. sea cucumber or collection of the intertidal resources • Worsening food and financial security • As yet unknown as implementation has not yet started. especially seaweed culture (Ms) • Deterioration in household food security • More labour invested in collection • Targeting of alternative resources • Possible migration in search of other resources • Re-adoption of ‘traditional’ sea cucumber market (via Tanzania) • Targeting of alternative resources and increased fishing pressure • Change of marketing strategy. D) • Increasing local fishing pressure (more fishers) • In-migrants • El Niño • Crown-of-Thorns starfish • Coastal physical geography and climate • Policy environment Development of seaweed culture and market (Ms) • Improved financial (and indirectly food) security • Reduced dependence on collected intertidal resources • Unknown • More emphasis on fishing with locally made gear (traps). 2 Ma. selling fresh rather than dried (Ms. variability of rains. D) Contraction of local sea cucumber market (Ms. Maueia. Darumba 3 Reported in texts.TABLE 19 A SUMMARY OF KEY CHANGES IN REEF-DERIVED LIVELIHOODS.2 Decline in intertidal mollusc resources Contributing factors • Open access • Easy equitable access • Variability of agriculture (especially D). poor soils (Ms). possibly changes in disposable income and priorities • Devaluation and inflation has resulted in rising local prices • Perceived decline in pelagic and demersal resources • Opportunities in tourism which may be harnessed through the park for the benefit of resources (and those dependent on them). taking fish to higher market personally (Ma). Messano. Ms. possibly legislation.Anticipated impact: – Improved resources and improved financial and food security for most fishers – Restricted fisheries (and livelihoods) for some fishers – Reduced in-migration – More local community involvement in resource management Decline in use of reef-derived limestone whitewash Deteriorating terms of trade between fish and fishing gear. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND IMPACTS IN NORTHERN MOZAMBIQUE Changes in reef-derived livelihood 1.

and so particularly benefits disadvantaged households. However. and are greatest amongst communities with poor agricultural resources. The open access nature of intertidal resources is easily accessed by all groups. Opportunities in seaweed cultivation have provided an important alternative and reduced some pressure from the intertidal resources. such as femaleheaded households. for example. For all communities the reef and near-shore resources play a fundamental role in livelihoods. the accessible shallow intertidal reef resources provide a crucial role in securing livelihoods. The population of the province is relatively small and population density is low. The lucrative demands of export markets for reef species have also taken their toll on the resources. community organisation and politicisation are low and organisations operating at the village level are extremely rare. with the lack of sanitation contributing to frequent outbreaks of disease. The diversity of reef resources is a source of considerable knowledge and skills in methods of extraction. These resources provide a source of food. requiring no entry investment or 106 . which contribute significantly to household food security. The high dependence on the intertidal resources is. income and materials for construction or lime for white washing. A large proportion of its coral reefs are found fringing the coast and offshore coralline islands in the northern province of Cabo Delgado. Standards of health and education are severely low. when current changes are viewed in the context of population growth and global warming. prone to drought. with easy access to intertidal resources. Within the diverse livelihood systems of the coastal communities. For households who have lost their main provider. Nevertheless. Government support is also weak. Agriculture in many places is poor. This diversity represents the principal mechanism to cope and survive. which can totally decimate crops. Similarly. disease and the risk of animal invasions. livelihoods are entirely based on the surrounding natural resources. with an almost total lack of government institutions at the village level. however. where the overall contribution of fisheries to livelihoods was significantly lower. is one of the poorest provinces in Mozambique and one of the more isolated. with around 40–60% living within 150 km of the coast. reducing risks through multiple options for choice and as safety nets in times of hardship. the impacts on the near-shore resource base and in particular the intertidal resource has potentially significant implications for the future livelihoods of the coastal communities. Indeed. Livelihood diversification is extremely high. and infrastructure and service delivery remain poorly developed. as well as outbreaks of Crown-of-Thorns starfish. in general there are relatively few externalities impacting the reefs and nearshore resources in Northern Mozambique. Reefs have also been impacted by the coral bleaching event in 1998 (associated with global warming and increases in sea surface temperatures). For women or female-headed households this accessibility provides an opportunity to access the reef by foot and harvest shallow mollusc resources. cyclones. And even despite the existing impacts. the reef and near-shore fisheries provide keystone resources during lows in agriculture. Near-shore fishing is in most communities considered a status activity and is an important source of identity. local communities generally perceive the reef fishery to be in good condition. both within households and within communities. such as drought. and vital safety nets in the face of extreme hardships. at the cost of uncontrolled exploitation and degradation of resources.6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS status. which was the focus of this study. Cabo Delgado. with heavy exploitation of sea cucumber. something which was observed even in communities where fishing was not the primary livelihood option. but where intertidal resources (small gastropods) play an important seasonal role in household consumption. or animal invasion. especially when compared to other more industrialised coastal areas of the world. leading to the collapse of this fishery. For the people of the coastal villages studied in Cabo Delgado. sheltering homes and property and in some areas providing a protected environment for seaweed cultivation. and in households where fishing was not the primary source of income. and for those without sufficient capital to enter into fishing. The dependency on shallow intertidal resources was observed even in the predominantly agricultural community of Maueia. this may not necessarily Mozambique possesses the third largest extent of coral reefs in Eastern Africa and according to the UNDP Human Development Report (2002) is the sixth poorest country in the world. on the border of Tanzania. even the low technology and largely subsistence mollusc collection has resulted in depletion of the local resource. The ‘ever presence’ of the intertidal reef and near-shore resources provides an important sense of security and peace of mind for coastal communities. However. or without sufficient labour to meet subsistence needs through agriculture. as well as bringing increased income security to many households. The impacts of the civil war and associated social and economic turmoil disrupted services for many years.

In other words. it may also potentially increase costs to local communities through possible restrictions on fisheries activities. and provides opportunities to increase local participation in resource management. disease and animal invasion. However. there is the real risk that the communities may be incapable of responding to the opportunities and incentives emerging through other intervention or development processes specifically targeting a single sector or concern such as the coral reefs. 107 . the absence of local organisations. In an area of such high poverty. Without addressing this wider context. The establishment of the nearby Quirimbas National Park also holds potential to diversify livelihoods through eco-tourism. to understand the isolation of these communities from policy implementation. the poor infrastructure and education. and the extreme vulnerabilities which people face.translate into increased food security and may increase risk through specialisation in the longer term. though with proper planning and collaboration with local communities this can be avoided or compensated for. associated with health and agriculture prone to drought. it is important to understand reef related issues in the wider livelihood framework.

Green EP. Relatório 6 Sumario Técnico. 1998. REFERENCES Frontier. Livro Branco de Cabo Delgado. Milledge S. Motta H. SAAMBR (unpublished report 168). Wilson JDK et al. 1999. Pp. 292. 424. Cabo Delgado. UNDP. 2002. Case study guidelines: Reef livelihoods assessment project. Stormy seas for marine invertebrates.7 REFERENCES AND NOTES Schleyer M. Governo da Província de Cabo Delgado & Cooperação Espanhola. Mozambique National Human Development Report. 108 . Berkeley. 1997. Traffic East/Southern Africa report. —— 1999. University of California Press. IMM and SPEECH. 2001. Recenseamento da Pesca Artesanal. NOTES 1 The survey covered 136 fishing centres with no extrapolation for centres not included. Guia de Maneio do Parque Nacional Quirimbas. World atlas of coral reefs. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Human Development Report 2002. Proceedings of the Eastern African National Marine Ecoregion Visioning Workshop. Ravilious C. WWF. Obdura D. pp. 2001. Instituto Nacional de Estatística. 2002. Spalding MD. Governo da Província de Cabo Delgado. Atlas da Pesca Artesanal em Moçambique. 1999. A preliminary assessment of coral bleaching in Mozambique. Tratamento dos cadernos das unidades de pesca do distrito de Macomia. 1999. Fisheries census (Palma and Macomia) —— 2001b. —— 2002. 1997. Levantamento de Recursos Biológicos e Marinhos. Rodrigues M. 2001. Marshall N. National population census 1997. 1999. Oxford University Press. Afonso P (Eds). Comercialização e distribuição de produtos pesqueiros do distrito de Macomia. —— 2001a. IDPPE. USA.

The key selection criteria proved to be village size. Village data. 3 INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD INTERVIEWS AND BENEFIT Interviews with individual households were not focused around semi-structured interviews as suggested in the guidelines. On some occasions variations were made to the field methodology in an attempt to improve data capture or modify the methodology to suit local conditions. house type. It should be noted that the recording of more than just the primary activity made the overlapping livelihood Figure 18 Pre-made household cards. The field methodology specified in the guidelines for the study (IMM and SPEECH. 1 VILLAGE SELECTION Village selection was made by the study team with the assistance of provincial officers from the IDPPE whilst in Pemba prior to the start of the field work. the more matches. Often not all the matches were distributed and sometimes more matches were requested. Note that community leaders were not part of the selection exercise. On completion of the list (usually between three and six sources of benefit were mentioned) the interviewee was given a pile of 50 or so matches and asked to distribute the matches between the paper squares in keeping with the contribution that each activity made to the household – the greater the contribution. if not presented in percentage form in this report. 2002) was followed as closely as was appropriate and possible within time and human constraints. dividing this by 60 and using the result as a sampling interval (calculated as three for Darumba and four for Messano). but it was found to be a quick and effective way to obtain a great deal of key information. The sample size in these villages was restricted to 50–60 houses (approximating to the sample size specified in the guidelines). 2 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY/MAPPING The village mapping exercise was facilitated by the use of premade household cards (Figure 18). and it is very much more common to find villages of 1000 or more households. Both used similar principles. activities (primary and secondary were recorded) and productive and animal assets. but with over 100 households this proved to be very time consuming. Around this exercise conversations often developed.ANNEX 1 VARIATIONS TO FIELD METHODOLOGIES activity unnecessary as these data had already been collected in the mapping exercise. Data covered population. one looking at household ‘benefit’ and the other at ‘expenditure’. The whole village was then walked with the local team member (physically passing in front of every house) and a card filled in for each third (Darumba) or fourth (Messano) house. one being filled out for each household mapped. in an attempt to follow the specified guidelines – small villages of 50–70 households are extremely rare (as a result of villagisation policies). In the first village (Maueia) all households were included on the village mapping. On completion of the distribution the matches placed on each activity were counted and percentages calculated of total contribution to benefit. Note that whether the interviewee chose to distribute 100 or 25 matches made no difference to the result – what was important was the relative importance of each activity (Figure 19). 109 . The exercise had two parts. has been scaled up on the basis of information obtained from the sampled houses. this shortcut was considered to be acceptable. The interviewee(s) was asked what activities contributed to household well-being and each activity mentioned was represented pictorially on a small square of paper placed on the ground. In Darumba and Messano only a sample of houses was mapped. but instead a ‘semi-quantitative’ exercise was developed. and houses chosen by taking the total number of houses in the village (information supplied by village head). This proved to be a very successful sampling technique. As the idea of the exercise was to illustrate coastal livelihoods rather than make a structured sample. This annex outlines the major differences in applied methodology.

It was apparent that such a small team has the advantage of being less conspicuous. namely James Wilson. In the end it was abandoned and replaced by a semistructured interview with the village headman. The analysis of data from both the above exercises and the household mapping was greatly facilitated by the use of a small database. At the start of the second part of the exercise the interviewee was asked what are the principle expenses in the household and again each was represented on a paper square. whilst agriculture can bring both) or on the basis of conversations with interviewees. (driver and logistics). 4 VENN DIAGRAM The Venn diagram exercise was not successfully carried out in any of the villages. the expenses data set was little used in the writing of this report. language. Estimates of cash and non-cash benefit (presented in Tables 15 and 16) were made on the basis of the ‘total’ benefit data. Participants simply had little or nothing to express. (economist. (officer.were distributed in keeping with the significance of each expense item. IDPPE Pemba). Again matches 110 . It was important to realise (revealed through on-going conversations about why matches had been distributed in a particular way) that the contribution valuation contained more than just food and cash benefits – interviewees put more emphasis on those activities that were dependable and could be relied upon to sustain the family no matter what may. attributed to the extremely low level of local organisation. Amade Garrett. clarifications. Data were entered daily into the database and could be checked immediately and data verified before leaving the village. Salimo Adamuge. Figure 19 Benefit and expenditure data collection. linked to spreadsheet pivot tables. etc. but at times data coverage was limited by time and the fact that the team was not easily subdivided. divided using either commonsense (clearly bucket-making brings cash rather than food benefits. Only the first three people participated in the field exercise. (sociologist). Paulo Muchave. team leader). An additional disadvantage was that all members of the team were under constant pressure. but the driver/logistics was an essential practical support to successful day-to-day operation. 5 STUDY TEAM COMPOSITION The field team was made up of only four people. In each village one person from that community was integrated into the team to assist with introductions. In the end.

ornatus. Anadara) Gastropods: Muricidae (C. ramosus) Fasciolaridae (P. Anadara) Gastropods: Muricidae (C. ramosus) Fasciolaridae (P. trapezium) Cephalopods Octopus Octopus Squid Lobsters: Palinuridae (P. versicolor) Sea Cucumbers: Holothuriidae Seaweed: Euchema Spinosa Echinoderms Macroalgae 111 . P. textilis) Bivalves: Sand Oysters (Pteriidae) Arcidae (Barbatia decussata. ornatus. P. trapezium) Octopus Molluscs Gastropods: Neritidae (undata. versicolor) Sea Cucumbers: Holothuriidae Crustaceans Lobsters Lobsters: Palinuridae (P.ANNEX 2 DIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES EXPLOITED FROM REEF AND NEAR-SHORE COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS Maueia Fish Lutjanidae Lethrinidae Carangidae Balistidae Scombridae Serranidae Scaridae Mullidae Caesionidae Sharks Darumba Belonidae Hemiramphidae Acanthuridae Leiognathidae Mullidae Scaridae Lutjanidae Caesionidae Balistidae Sphyraenidae Lethrinidae Messano Lutjanidae Carangidae Sharks Serranidae Siganidae Scombridae (Scomber) Lethrinidae Scaridae Mullidae Acanthuridae Scorpaenidae Zeidae Muraenidae Dasyatidae Pomacanthidae Chaetodontidae Sphyraenidae Scombridae (Thunnus) Haemulidae Gerreidae Labridae Bivalves: Pteriidae (Pinctada) Arcidae (Barbatia decussata.

Rengasamy John Devavaram Rajendra Prasad Erskine Arunodaya 113 .A Case Study from the Gulf of Mannar S.

Local participants in all three villages spent much of their valuable time in contributing to the information contained in this study. TRRM. in the coastal villages of Gulf of Mannar. who facilitated fieldwork and enriched our knowledge through their depth of experience in the field and understanding of the local perspective. We thank them and hope that the discussions and knowledge they shared will benefit their work with TRRM and potential future work with programmes concerned for the coral reefs and sustainable development of the Gulf of Mannar region.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks are due to all the staff at SPEECH and their counterpart. IMM Ltd. 114 . All photos in Study 2 were supplied by Emma Whittingham.

coconut/palm leaf roof Mechanised and non-mechanised local wooden boats used in small-scale fishery Small wooden non-mechanised country boats with sail and oars for rowing. used for short distances and with shore net Launches Large commercial trawlers Types of boats Country boats Vathai Vallam Types of fishing gear Crab net Description Notes Specific for crab Used between islands and shore over seagrass Operated from country boats (mechanised and non-mechanised) Varying mesh size Unspecific Often made up of old pieces of net Hand operated net Used in shallow water around islands and from shore Thrown over schools of fish Line with specific squid hook Operated from any boat in area between island and shore Larger mesh on sides Small mesh at end Unspecific Operated from shore over deep water Metal hoe type tool Used to scrape seaweed from reef On loan from traders with sale agreement for catch Up to ~10 nets may be deployed from one boat ~3 people operate from non-mechanised country boat ~10 people operate from mechanised country boat Owned by local low income vulnerable families.NOMENCLATURE ACRONYMS GoEF GOMMBR GCRMN ICRMN Department of Environment and Forests. tiled roof Thatched Mud walls. Disco net Cast net Squid hook and line Shore net Seaweed scraping tool 115 . Used by 6–10 people Karavalai Thoni Small wooden canoe. Opportunistic use Sale of catch not tied to trader but at choice of fisher Owned by individuals Low expense Often used in conjunction with crab nets Sale of catch linked to trader Owned by individual in community Operated by ~40 or more Labour on shore waged Owner and assistants in boat share catch Excess small fish distributed Owned by individual users Local regulation to stop its use and return to hand picking seaweed. Used by 2–3 people Small wooden mechanised country boats with outboard diesel engine and often larger than Vathai. Government of India Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network Indian Coral Reef Monitoring Network IUCN NGO SPEECH WWF International Union for the Conservation of Nature Non-Governmental Organisation Society for People’s Education and Economic Change World Wide Fund for Nature LOCAL TERMINOLOGY Rs Indian Rupee (exchange rate ~47Rs: 1US$) Types of houses Pucca Concrete house – roof and walls Tiled Brick walls. Sale of catch not tied to trader but at choice of fisher Owned by local low income vulnerable families.

Finally. concluding remarks are made in Section 6. outlining key social. The following case study report provides an overview of reef-based livelihoods in the Gulf of Mannar. The main work was undertaken over a period of 6 weeks beginning in March 2002. ecological. Benefits arising from the reef resources to all aspects of the livelihoods of the poorer members of the communities are described in Section 4. Section 5 outlines how reef-derived livelihoods have changed and discusses the causes of these changes and impacts on poor people’s livelihoods. This was the first RLA case study and focused on developing and piloting participatory assessment methods for application in other case study locations. economic and administrative characteristics of the area and local livelihood systems. focusing on three village communities in the Ramanathapuram district on the eastern side of the Gulf.BACKGROUND TO THE GULF OF MANNAR CASE STUDY The Gulf of Mannar case study was carried out in partnership with SPEECH. identifying what characteristics locally define poor households and estimating the extent of poverty existing in the communities. The first two sections of the report give a contextual overview of the study area and study communities. 116 . A half-day validation workshop was held by SPEECH in mid-April 2002 with local village participants and representatives from relevant local government departments (Fisheries and Forests) and research institutions. summarising the key aspects of the benefits of reef resources to the livelihoods of poor households and how these have responded to change. entitled Reef Livelihoods. Section 3 discusses the features of poverty in the study communities. following consultation with the Indian Coral Reef Monitoring Network (ICRMN). The methodology designed is outlined in brief in Annex 1 and in more detail in IMM and SPEECH (2002). .

India’s southern most maritime state (Figure 1).html 117 . page 123). Tamil Nadu ranks as the sixth largest state in India. Idinthakalpudur.in/ Gulf of Mannar map: ICRMN website http://envfor.in/icrmn/icrmn.4% of the state’s population live in the coastal districts of Ramanathapuram and Toothukkudi bordering the Gulf of Figure 1 Location of study area.1 SOCIAL SETTING According to the 2001 census.tn. Source: India map: National Informatics Centre. 1. are located on the eastern shores of the Gulf of Mannar in the district of Ramanathapuram (Figure 2. with a population of over 62 million and a population density 48% greater than the national average. The three study villages: Indiranagar. and Thavukadu. 4. Government of Tamil Nadu website: http://tnmaps.nic.nic.1 STUDY AREA CONTEXT T he area considered for study was the eastern region of the Gulf of Mannar located on the south east border of Tamil Nadu.

55 67.6% greater than the national average (Table 1).Mannar. where population densities are respectively 11% less and 4. 1991 3 Director of Census Operations. The Tamil Nadu population is made up predominantly of Hindus.73 141 809 299 813 883 508 287 4.19 6 817 669 27 241 553 34 869 286 478 0. with a higher rate of 59 in rural areas compared with 40 in urban areas.1 64.38 75. with 79% Hindus.762 Toothukkudi 1 565 743 764 087 801 656 7.47 82. Chennai (1996–2001) 4 Department of Public Heath and Preventative Medicine.64 Sanitation (% households)2 Houses with safe drinking Houses with toilet Life expectancy3 Male Female Infant mortality rate4 1 Census of India.752 Decadal growth rate1 (1991–2001) Population age 0–6years 1 Population distribution Urban Rural 285 354 954 741 660 293 324 0.5 and 41.54 173 580 661 932 903 811 339 4.33 64. who comprise 89% of the population. This may be attributed to an increase in the number of primary and secondary educational establishments and students in the state.66 75.7 62. respectively) and even smaller numbers of Jains and Sikhs. TAMIL NADU AND COASTAL DISTRICTS India 1 027 015 247 531 277 078 495 738 169 21.96 88. 2001) Toothukkudi value combined with neighbouring district of Tirunelveli 3 Census of India. Among the coastal districts of the Gulf of Mannar the picture is only slightly changed. followed by small proportions of Muslims and Christians (5 and 6%.96 63. Chennai (1998) 118 .85 65.80 64. 1991 TABLE 2 Statistic Literacy rate1 Male Female SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS FOR INDIA.35 0.8% of villages in Ramanathapuram and Toothukkudi districts. TABLE 1 Statistic Population Male Female 1 DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS FOR INDIA. Medical facilities are available in 37. 2001 2 Census of India. Life expectancy at birth for Tamil Nadu is slightly greater than the national average.34 157 863 145 1 Tamil Nadu 62 110 839 31 268 654 30 842 185 11.3 23. followed by 12% Christians and 9% Muslims.623 Ramanathapuram 1 183 321 582 068 601 253 5. TAMIL NADU AND COASTAL DISTRICTS India 65. while the infant mortality rate for the state remains the same as the 1991 census (Table 2).69 0. Government school education is also free and poor students are eligible to get free uniforms.20 72 Tamil Nadu 73. books and a free lunch.20 53 Ramanathapuram 73.793 Population density1 (ps/km2) Per household2 Total dependency ratio 1 Census of India. Caste groupings within the districts are as described in Table 3.28 62.55 Toothukkudi 81. 2001 2 (NCAER. The literacy rate for Tamil Nadu and the two coastal districts is generally high and above the national average. As a whole the state’s literacy rate has increased by 11% since the last census in 1991.4 23. respectively.05 82.96 54.

29 0. 2001).26 0.30 0.01 0. The coastline and mainland of Ramanathapuram district (named after the God Rama) are also associated with places and events mentioned in the Ramayana (e. respectively.2 ECOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL SETTING Bordering the Bay of Bengal.nic. respectively (DOD.11 0. The famous pilgrim centre of Rameswaram depicted in the Ramayana scriptures is situated on Pamban Island at the eastern end of the Gulf. Tidal amplitude is only 0. Government of Tamil Nadu website: http://tnmaps.81 m during springs tides and falling to 0.2 m during neap tides. The Gulf of Mannar is home to three major ecosystem types.in/ The Gulf of Mannar occupies a prominent place in the cultural heritage and history of India. Tirupullani. Tamil Nadu accounts for 13 and 9% of India’s coastline and continental shelf. which speaks of the oneness of India’s past. The climate in the Gulf of Mannar is marked by the monsoon seasons. The Gulf of Mannar covers an area of approximately 10 500 km2 along 8°35´– 9°25´ north latitude and 78°08´– 79°30´ east longitude. The extent and composition of these ecosystems has been the subject of much research in recent years1 and the area is recognised for its biodiversity. The south west monsoon season.29 km2 (Hare Island) and are found at varying distances from coast from a maximum of 15 km to only 3 km. contributes little towards the annual rainfall. Tuticorin Van Tivu Kasuwar Karaichalli Vilanguchalli Upputhanni Pulvinichalli Nallathanni Anaipar Valimunai Appa Poovarasanpatti Thalairi Valai Mulli Hare (Musal) Manoli Manoliputti Poomarichan Pullivasal Krusadai Shingle 0. including 128 species of coral. Rameswaram is also known as Sethu from the expression. TABLE 4 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 21 ISLANDS OF THE GULF OF MANNAR Island group Island Area (km2) Nearest coastal town Tuticorin Distance to nearest coastal town (km) 6 7 15 15 8 8 10 9 9 8 8 9 9 10 1. with heavier rainfall during the north east monsoon from October to December. nine species of mangroves and thousands more species of associated flora and fauna (DOD. which are found on and surrounding the 21 islands. Activities of the coastal population are widely viewed as having deleterious impacts on the marine ecosystems.07 0. As shown in Table 4.29 <0.17 0.06 1.66 0. Thousands of pilgrims are attracted to Ramanathapuram district and Rameswaram every day from all over India. seagrasses and mangroves.01 0. ‘from the Himalayas to Sethu’.10 0. Amongst this biodiversity there is evidence of 200 species being commercially exploited and 123 species which are believed to be vulnerable or endangered (DOD.20 0.5 m.g.10 0. Much of the research surrounding the marine ecosystems of the Gulf of Mannar has also indicated serious degradation of the natural resources.02 0. Devipatnam. the islands range in size from 0. namely coral reefs.tn. The extent of coral reef and seagrass immediately surrounding the 21 islands has been estimated from satellite imagery to cover an area of 99 and 86 km2. with a 1000 km coastline and a continental shelf of 41 400 km2.16 0.5 4 119 . 12 species of seagrass. Within the Gulf of Mannar 21 uninhabited islands covering a total area of 6.16 0. 2001).10 1.75 0.TABLE 3 CASTE GROUPINGS IN COASTAL DISTRICTS BORDERING THE GULF OF MANNAR Caste Proportion of population (%) Ramanathapuram Scheduled castes Pallans Parayans Mukkulathors Idaiyans Yadavs Nadars Vellalas Muthurajas Naidus Brahmins 19 12 4 16 6 6 6 6 In some strength In some strength No record Toothukkudi 14 7 3 9 In some strength In some strength 20 8 No record In some strength In some strength Source: National Informatics Centre.30 0.003 km2 (Poovarasanpatti Island) to 1. The average annual rainfall varies from 762 mm to 1270 mm and average monthly temperatures range from a maximum of 31°C in May to a minimum of 25°C in January.2 km2 are scattered close to the coastline. stretching 140 km from Tuticorin in the south west to Rameswaram in the north east. 2001). increasing to a maximum of 0.13 Vembar Vembar Keelakkarai Keelakari Mandapam Mandapam camp 7 5 5 3 3 Pamban 3. but periods of rough seas are reported around August. More than 55% of the continental shelf is no deeper than 50 m. from June to September. Darbasayanam).

In Tamil Nadu marine fisheries account for 82% of all active fishermen. 1. over-harvesting of vulnerable or endangered species and land-based pollution. with mat weaving common in Ramanathapuram district. 2001) 120 . with the sinistral or right-handed whorled chank considered sacred and used in worship in Hindu temples. (Source: DOD.The main objectives of the GOMMBR are: • • • • • Conservation and management of representative marine ecosystems Protection of endangered and important marine living resources Provision of long-term conservation of genetic diversity Promotion of basic and applied research work and its monitoring Dissemination of information through education and training. Tamil Nadu’s fishing fleet numbers 64 126 vessels of which 84% are traditional crafts (known locally as Vallams and Vathai) contributing 47% of the total fish landings.As the first marine biosphere reserve declared in India.4 m depth on the bay-side to 9. of whom it is estimated 21 000 are active fishermen. as a marine biosphere reserve is for the purpose of protecting marine wild life and its environment. but changes in nature according to local availabilities of different species.The IUCN Commission on National Parks and WWF identified the reserve as being an area of ‘particular concern’ given its diversity and special multiple use management status. Historically the Gulf of Mannar coastline has been a significant region in maritime trade. Wind patterns generally restrict the use of small-scale crafts between the months of August and October. as documented by the historian Pliny from the second century AD. both of which have been a government monopoly. including the trading of pearls with the Greek and Roman empires from the days prior to Augustus Caesar (63 BC–14 AD). Traditional or small-scale fishing is carried out predominantly in the ‘trapped sea’ between the islands and the mainland coast and in the shallow waters and reef areas surrounding the islands. respectively. there are opportunities for employment in salt extraction. In addition to fisheries-related occupations along the coast. While the pearl fishery has not been open since 1961 due to the absence of sufficient oyster populations. the chank fishery has continued on an annual basis until it was officially banned in recent years. 1998).3 ECONOMIC SETTING Fisheries is the predominant industry in the coastal belt of the Gulf of Mannar. In addition. Of the two coastal districts bordering the gulf. The intention of declaring the 21 islands and surrounding sea. and also in Palmyrah (toddy) tapping and agricultural labour. There are an estimated 316 422 people earning their livelihoods from marine fishing in the state. Ramanathapuram contributed 23% to the overall marine fish production in the state during 1998–1999. such as dynamite fishing and trawling. this area has long been a national priority. particularly in the western side of the Gulf near Tuticorin. destructive fishing practices. Skilled work is also undertaken.3 Traditional crafts were responsible for 39 and 38% of the overall production for Ramanathapuram. Fishing takes place throughout the year.2 According to a Tamil Nadu marine fisherfolk census undertaken during 2000. including 6. and during this period many fishermen simply switch to labouring on larger mechanised boats. The GOMMBR was declared on 18 February 1989 by the Government of India and the State of Tamil Nadu. distributed among 591 fishing villages. Moving inland from the coast toddy tapping and agriculture are the predominant occupations with small business-related opportunities prevalent near Rameswaram in connection with the tourism in this area (SSFRD. while Toothukkudi contributed 13%. 1998).causes of degradation include coral mining.1 m depth on the seaward side. who are responsible for 76% of the total fish production in the state and 8% of the total marine catch for India. In response to these factors and in recognition of the high level of biodiversity. and Toothukkudi districts. the islands and surrounding marine ecosystems of the Gulf of Mannar were declared firstly as a national park and subsequently as a marine biosphere reserve (Box 1). 98 of these villages are located along the Gulf of Mannar coast with an estimated population of 72 766. Chanks are a particularly valuable cultural resource. the 1998 El Niño event and associated high surface water temperatures resulted in extensive coral bleaching and mortality throughout the Gulf of Mannar (Kumaraguru. BOX 1 THE GULF OF MANNAR MARINE BIOSPHERE RESERVE (GOMMBR) GOMMBR was the first marine biosphere reserve not only in India but also in South and Southeast Asia. the largest production of any district in Tamil Nadu. The Gulf is famous for its chank (Xanchous pyrum) and pearl fisheries.

however. The traditional fishermen along the Gulf of Mannar are Moopers who are culturally known for subsistence living and attitudes of responsibility towards the health of the natural resources. blocks and town and village panchayats. guaranteeing trade for the small harvests of the traditional small-scale fishermen. Historically the Gulf of Mannar and its islands were ruled as a kingdom by the Raja of Ramnad. Availability of resources is determined largely by the resource status. the caste system ties the coastal fisherfolk to fishery-based occupations and limits the possibilities for livelihood diversification or the uptake of alternative livelihood options. is believed to have parted ownership of some of the islands. these include caste-based organisation. also known as Tuticorin). 91 in Ramanathapuram district and seven in Toothukkudi district. At the same time. which in the Gulf of Mannar is widely considered to be degrading.1. providing infrastructure for the timely purchase of perishable items. were either fully or partly owned by individuals. both departments are represented in the Gulf of Mannar through extension offices. these include: Natural resources: This represents a fundamental factor underpinning the fisheries occupations which dominate the livelihood opportunities of the coastal communities. smaller community organisations are invariably present. In the Gulf of Mannar access to natural resources is determined not only by the varying distance between the islands and the coastal communities. During medieval times. 121 . there are two coastal districts bordering the Gulf of Mannar (Ramanathapuram and Toothukkudi. the Raja of Ramnad. the relationship between market traders and fishers is known as the Sattambi system. Thus. these are represented at a district level through a Fisheries Union. As well as the panchayat administrative systems associated with these villages. but also by controls placed on the system by the GOMMBR and other laws and regulations. TABLE 5 ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS OF THE COASTAL DISTRICTS OF THE GULF OF MANNAR Administrative unit Taluks Blocks Town panchayats Village panchayats Ramanathapuram 7 (3) 11 (4) 9 443 (91) Thoothukkudi 8 (3) 12 (3) 20 408 (7) Note: Figures in brackets indicate the number of administrative units bordering the Gulf of Mannar. soft loans. markets and associated traders and middlemen play a pivotal role in determining the form and success of fisheries livelihoods. Culture: Attitudes and responsibilities towards sustainable resource exploitation are influenced strongly by culture. the remaining marine resources are managed through the Department of Fisheries. All the islands were eventually ceded to the government (or purchased in the case of the privately owned islands) and they are now notified as reserve lands. A total of 98 villages are found bordering the Gulf of Mannar. fishermen’s sanghams and women’s self-help groups. Management of the GOMMBR is the responsibility of the Department of Environment and Forests (DoEF). followed by taluks. The first level of decentralisation is the district. providing credit.4 ADMINISTRATIVE SETTING Administrative systems operate at varying levels within the state. known as Sethupathi. the administrative divisions within these districts are described in Table 5 below. either as gifts or in trade. Village level fishermen sanghams are groups of small-scale fishermen. As mentioned above. public awareness and the development of alternative livelihood strategies.5 EXTERNAL FACTORS CONTROLLING LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES For the coastal communities of the Gulf of Mannar there are combinations of factors that determine their livelihood opportunities. as well as the availability of resources (their quality and quantity) are key factors influencing the success and form of the natural resourcebased livelihood system. while the remaining islands were known as poramboke land or ‘nobody’s’ land. while others focus on the marine environment. some of the islands. protected along with surrounding waters as part of the GOMMBR. In the Gulf of Mannar. equipment (on loan or hire) and supporting families through periods of crisis. some with a focus towards welfare and empowerment. The accessibility of the islands and surrounding resources. such as Hare (Musal) and Nallathanni. Various local and national NGOs are also active in the Gulf of Mannar all of whom are associated in one way or another with the local communities of small-scale fishermen. 1. Market system: With the commercialisation of fisheries.

The study was conducted in three villages located in Ramanathapuram. Indiranagar (located in Ramanathapuram taluk) and Thavukadu (located in Rameswaram taluk on Pemba Island) (Figure 2). including: Boat labour 9% Shorenet labour 33% Land-based 3% Gender roles Key: M/F Male/Female  Common H Rare  Never Principle occupation Own boat fishing Boat labour Seaweed collection Land-based M   H H F     Principle occupation Own boat fishing Boat labour Shorenet labour Land-based M     F     122 . which is accessible via a dirt road (Figure 2). reef-based resources surrounding islands. families Own boat fishing Boat labour Seaweed collection Land-based Sea-based options Land-based options Social composition Demography Livelihood opportunities (% households with primary option) Livelihood strategies 54% with no secondary activity 46% with secondary activity. Nearest island is Appa Island 10 km away.1 Idinthakalpudur Idinthakalpudur is located 3 km south of Keelakari town.1. A direct comparison of the three study villages is given in Table 6. There are 48 households in Idinthakalpudur with an average size of 4. TABLE 6 STUDY VILLAGE COMPARISON TABLE Indiranagar Idinthakalpudur Marine resources: seagrass bed.2 COMMUNITY CONTEXT 2. owned by Forest Dept Single caste 100% Hindu Population Males Females No. and few acres of agriculture lands earlier owned by the Rajas (kings) now used by the fishing families Single caste 100% Hindu 238 129 109 48 64 41% 39% 13% 8% 93% 8% Population Males Females No. namely Idinthakalpudur. households Own boat fishing Boat labour Seaweed collection Land-based Sea-based options Land-based options 190 92 98 48 39% 30% 23% 9% 92% 9% Thavukadu Marine resources: sand bottom near-shore suitable for shore net.2. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SETTING 2. The houses are located along the shore only a few metres away from the sea and are predominantly thatched (62% of households). Terrestrial resources: coconut farms. Nearest island is Valai Island 15 km away. Terrestrial resources: Forests adjacent to village. including: Own boat fishing 3% Seaweed collection 13% Boat labour 12% Land-based 7% No households have family working abroad Principle occupation Own boat fishing Boat labour Seaweed collection Land-based M   H  F    H 55% with no secondary activity 45% with secondary activities. Terrestrial resources: coconut farms. Near-shore seagrass and reef-based resources. households Own boat fishing Shorenet labour Land-based Boat labour Family abroad Sea-based options Land-based options 191 93 98 45 52% 27% 13% 4% 4% 83% 17% Natural resource access Marine resources: seagrass bed. households No. ECOLOGICAL. the eastern district of the Gulf of Mannar. including: Own boat fishing 5% Boat labourers 34% Land-based 7% 31% families involved in seaweed collection 33% households have family working abroad 65% with no secondary activity 35% with secondary activities. and few acres of agriculture lands earlier owned by the Rajas (kings) now used by the fishing families Single caste 100% Hindu Population Males Females No. Nearest island is Shingle Island 15 km away. The The following section provides a summary of the context of each of the study villages. reefbased resources surrounding islands.1 GEOGRAPHICAL.

customs interference due to proximity to Sri Lanka Rameswaram 11 km Rameswaram 11 km Rameswaram 11 km Mandapam 23 km Pamban 18 km Rameswaram 11 km Pamban 18 km Local institutions (distance away) Forest Department Keelakari 18 km Fisheries Department Periapattanam 3 km Taluk Office Ramnad 15 km Panchayat Union Office Thiruppulani 10 km Fisheries Union Ramnad 15 km Market traders Muthupettai 3 km Self-help groups and TRRM NGO Rameswaram 18 km Keelakari 3 km Keelakari 3 km Ramnad 20 km Thiruppulani 13 km Sivakami 3 km Keelakaria 3 km Sivakamipuram 3 km TAMIL NADU STATE (SHOWING DISTRICT DIVISIONS) Vellore Th iru lu val r N Chennai Kancheepuram Tiruvanamalai Dharmapuri Viluppuram The Nilgiris P RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT (SHOWING TALUK DIVISIONS) Thiruvadanai Salem Cuddalore Namakkai Perambalur Erode Nagapattinam TiruchiraCoimbatore P Karur ppalli iya Ar Paramakudi Kamuthi Muthukulathur Ramanathapuram Idinthakalpudur Palk Bay Rameshwaram lur Thiruyarur ur jav Dindigul Madurai Pudukkottai Sivaganga Th an Nagapattinam Mandapam2 Theni Keelakari1 Indiranagar Virudhunagar Kadaladi Ramanathapuram Thavukadu Dhaniskodi Kanniyakumari Figure 2 Location of study villages.170 2 Mandapam town population size 11. Government of Tamil Nadu website: http://tnmaps.000 Toothukund Gulf of Mannar i n Tiru elve li 123 .0 8% 2% 19% 33% 29% Average hh size Female-headed hh Hh with no male Mechanised boat Country boat Crab nets 4.0 11% 4% 10% 42% 4% Nil Household (hh) human assets Household productive assets Vulnerabilities and risks • Seasonal monsoon impacts • Resource degradation • Restrictions associated with GOMMBR • Net damage by commercial pair trawlers • Net theft • Seasonal monsoon impacts • Resource degradation • Restrictions associated with GOMMBR • Net damage by commercial pair trawlers • Net theft • Seasonal monsoon impacts • Resource degradation • Restrictions associated with GOMMBR • Net damage by commercial pair trawlers • Net theft • Coast Guard.in/ 1 Keelakari town population size: 3.tn. Source: National Informatics Centre.2 19% 9% 22% 24% 36% Average hh size Female-headed hh Hh with no male Mechanised boat Country boat Shore-net Crab nets 4.nic.TABLE 6 (CONTINUED) Average hh size Female-headed hh Hh with no male Mechanised boat Country boat Crab nets 5.

with only 9% undertaking land-based options. respectively (Table 8). Inconvenience is not felt by the people.2 Indiranagar Indiranagar is located 18 km north east of Keelakari and 0. Fishing activities also take place around the reefs and in the ‘trapped sea’ area between the islands and the mainland coast. Nearest supply store/market is located at Keelakari. Two temples Both temples are Hindu. cold storage facilities and various fishing companies (e. TABLE 7 Sector Education IDINTHAKLPUDUR SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE Infrastructure No school Comment Primary (5–10 years). Households also tend to be associated with a single livelihood option. Both the schools are government sponsored schools. Only spring water is available No sanitation facilities Unfinished temple is present No supply store or market No bank facility Sufficient for domestic use. is available No sanitation Inconvenience is not felt by facilities the people. All are Hindus. The population numbers 238 (129 males and 109 females) all of whom are Hindu and from a single caste group. National and scheduled banking facilities are available at Keelakari.6 km away from the sea (Figure 2). Baby Marine. There are 48 households in the village with an average size of 5. but there are no other sanitation facilities and all other services are located in the nearby towns of Muthupettai and Periapattanam. private clinics and consultants are available at Keelakari. The nearest banks (national and scheduled) are located in Periapattanam. polytechnic. But the majority of households in Idinthakalpudur are involved in sea-based occupations. Piped water supply Drinkable and adequate.g. The nearest island to Idinthakalpudur is Appa Island approximately 10 km from the village. Piped water and electricity are available in the village. TABLE 8 Sector Education INDIRANAGAR SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE Infrastructure No school Comment Primary school is located at Muthupettai (1 km away). Health No health facilities Primary health centre (government sponsored). Health Water Sanitation Religion Markets/ supplies Finance Water Sanitation Religion Markets/ supplies Fisheries Limited support services Finance Fisheries Poor support services 124 . 2. shells and lobsters. Kadal Kanni Frozen Food.A trained public health nurse is available there to attend minor illnesses and delivery cases. The majority of seaweed and shell collection is undertaken by women. mat weaving and construction labour are also undertaken as land-based activities with women only taking an occasional part.1.total population of the village is 190 (92 males and 98 females). No health facilities Health subcentre in Periapattanam caters to the needs of a 5000 population. Ice factory. who travel in groups to the islands onboard fishing boats.0 and predominantly constructed of thatch (60% of households). 1 and 3 km away. The coral reefs surrounding Appa and neighbouring islands are used extensively by the village for harvesting seaweed. all of whom are Hindu and from a single caste group. Electricity is supplied to the village. but no sanitation facilities are present and all other services are located a walkable distance away in Keelakari town (Table 7). associated with the seagrass habitat and crab and fish resources. higher secondary (11–18 years) (government and private). Coconut and Palmyrah (toddy) palms provide a source of land-based labour opportunities. (Vinayaka and Kaliammam temples) Small petty shops are available in the village No banking facility A number of grocery and provision stores are also available in Muthupettai and Periapattanam. Diamond Sea Food) function from Keelakari. women’s college (private) are located in Keelakari. Goat rearing. with only 35% of households undertaking secondary activities. Nearest service is available at Ramnad 15 km away. Higher secondary and an English missionary school is located at Periapattanam (3 km away).

All villagers are Hindu and from a single caste group. fishing is predominantly undertaken in the lagoon area adjacent to the village and also in Palk Bay a walkable distance (carrying boats) to the north of the Gulf. offices of fishing. 2. Villagers live on the beach in poramboke land. BOX 2 ORIGIN OF THAVUKADU VILLAGE NAME The name of the village was originally Thavupadu derived from ‘thavu’ which means deep and ‘padu’ which means catch and relating to the deeper area of water adjacent to the village which is used for shore netting.The nearest island to Indiranagar is Valai Island approximately 15 km away from the village. Households have a similar tendency for associating with a single livelihood option (54% of households) or involvement in secondary activities (46% of households). Health Water Sanitation Religion Markets/ supplies Finance Fisheries No health facilities Health facility is available at Rameswaram. Ice factory. the majority of other services are located in Rameswaram town 11 km away (Table 9). TABLE 9 Sector Education THAVUKADU SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE Infrastructure No school Comment Primary school (government) located in Ramakrishnapuram (3 km). all of which are constructed of thatch. although a slightly greater proportion (17% of households) also undertake land-based options. associated with the seagrass habitat is used extensively for fishing in particular for crabs. Hindu religion. the majority of households undertake sea-based livelihoods. located 15 km away. The ‘trapped sea’ area between the islands and the mainland coast. Shells are not collected and seaweed collection is undertaken mainly by women. hence the name changed to Thavukadu The nearest island to Thavukadu village is Shingle Island. Coconut and Palmyrah palms provide a source of landbased labour opportunities. As with Indiranagar. 18 km from Pamban and 23 km from Mandapam close to Dhaniskodi. the majority of households in Indiranagar are involved in sea-based livelihood options. undertaken by both men and women. Only spring water available No sanitation facilities No temple No store and market No bank Limited support services Inconvenience is not felt by the people. Construction labour is another land-based option. 125 . Higher secondary school (government and private) is located in Rameswaram (11 km). which is considered the primary livelihood option for 4% of households. serving as grazing land for goats and sheep.0. with only 8% undertaking land-based options. although this does not feature as a primary or secondary livelihood option. Seaweed collection is not undertaken in Thavukadu. the eastern most village in the Gulf (Figure 2). with women constituting 73% of the shore-net labour force. Casurina forest is found in and around the village. The population numbers 191 (93 males and 98 females) with an average household size of size of 4. Nearest supply store/market is located at Rameswaram. although shells are collected from the shore and sandy areas offshore of the village. Nearest bank facility is available at Rameswaram. There is no electricity and no water supply or sanitation facilities in the village.3 Thavukadu Thavukadu village (Box 2) is situated in the eastern part of the Gulf of Mannar on Pamban island 11 km to the north east of Rameswaram township. As with Idinthakalpudur. Women’s involvement in land-based activities is common and mostly involves mat weaving.The named change in the period after the 1964 cyclone. Forty-five households are located here. companies and the Assistant Director of fisheries are located in Rameswaram. Men and women are involved in shore net activities. which is made possible by the presence of deeper water immediately offshore from the village. Households with family members working abroad are commonly encountered (33%). The coral reef areas surrounding Valai and neighbouring islands are used for seaweed collection and fishing activities.1. when the Forest Department planted Causerina trees near the village and people began calling the place ‘kadu’ meaning forest. Again. ‘nobody’s’ or common property land. cold storage. households have a similar tendency for associating with a single livelihood option (55% of households) or involvement in secondary activities (45% of households). Unique to this village when compared with Idinthakalpudur and Indiranagar. as well as family members working abroad. mainly by women. mat weaving and construction labour are also undertaken as land-based activities. which is the main source of land-based livelihood opportunities. is the use of shore-nets. However. Goat rearing.

particularly in conflicts with larger commercial fisheries operations. This causes particular interference in Thavukadu community closest to the border. which include micro-credit schemes. a local organiser is present in every village. such as nets and fishing gear through theft or damage by larger commercial boats.) The Fisheries Union has a membership of nearly 80% of the small-scale fishermen through the local fishermen’s sanghams. The Forest Department is responsible for management of the GOMMBR and enforcement of associated legislation. field exposure visits and regular training. 126 . coral reefs and seagrass beds. many of which are now officially illegal. rainfall and cyclone depressions which interrupt and impact normal routines and access to resources. The high dependence on near-shore marine resources. subsidised diesel and operate saving insurance schemes. part of the Revenue Department. The Taluk Office is responsible for standard government services.5). TRRM operates throughout Ramanathapuram district and although the main office of TRRM is some distance from the villages. etc. including the islands. Market traders guarantee support and market for small catches of traditional fishermen through the Sattambi system (see Section 1. Local NGO TRRM and self-help groups are focused towards the empowerment and development of local communities and are concerned with local participation in resource management. motivation camps. including the identification of households Below the Poverty Line (BPL) for administrative and monitoring purposes.3 VULNERABILITIES The main vulnerabilities and risks faced by the three communities are associated with their sea-based livelihoods. a common occurrence in all villages.2 ADMINISTRATIVE SETTING Communities in the three villages interact with multiple organisations and government departments. 2. They provide support services such as the provision of ice boxes. In addition local communities also face the risk of losing their household productive assets. including land revenue collection and provision of certificates of birth. including seasonal monsoon winds. The Panchayat Union Office provides rural development and welfare services. cold storage facilities. The Fisheries Department is responsible for fisheries development and control.2. death. rickshaw transport. Dependence on the sea and marine resources exposes the small-scale fishers to vulnerabilities associated with working at sea. Almost 80% of the adult population in the villages participate in TRRM activities. The key organisations and institutions are listed below. The union plays an important role in representing fishers’ grievances and lobbying for fishers’ rights. Self help groups are coordinated through TRRM together with the Fisheries Union. Restriction of access due to conservation measures also add risks to the traditional fishing occupations. land. also inherently expose the communities to risks associated with resource degradation. inheritance. particularly in connection with fishing and smuggling disputes on the border with Sri Lanka. (Distribution of ration cards is undertaken separately by the Civil Supplies Department. Social and political tensions are also apparent.

the coastal revenue district of Ramanathapuram ranked ninth amongst the 21 revenue districts of the state in terms of its Social Development Index (NCAER. these aggregate figures can obscure the complexity and diversity of livelihoods and development. 2001) the development performance of Tamil Nadu is more impressive against social rather than economic indicators. with poorer and often marginalised households and communities living amongst those better off. Poverty as defined by the Tamil Nadu Government for all its development interventions and inline with Government of India standards. the overall distribution of households amongst the three categories of ‘poor’.5 in rural areas and 39. such as female-headed households. 2001). 2001). In contrast ‘poor’ households were generally considered to include: those with limited workforce. grinder • Those who have less than Rs 4500 (~$96) per capita annual income.3 and 32. households engaged in land-based labouring. 2001). the percentage of population below the poverty line was 32. The picture of poverty is extended through locally defined criteria to give a perception of poverty particular to the coastal context and the lives of those living along the shores of the Gulf of Mannar. criteria which are considered locally to contribute towards poverty overlap to some extent with official parameters (Table 10). Ownership of land and property.8 in urban areas. According to a socio-economic survey of the Gulf of Mannar conducted in 1998 (SSFRD. However. or households with many female children. Households with male labour. fishing boat and gear. the state ranks fifth and above the India average (Rs 2349 (~$50) average monthly per capita income in Tamil Nadu. in sea-based labouring or seaweed collection. respectively (NCAER. are considered important indicators of households which have escaped poverty or TABLE 10 POVERTY CRITERIA EVOLVED BY LOCAL PARTICIPANTS IN THREE VILLAGES IN THE GULF OF MANNAR Poverty criteria Indiranagar Idinthakalpudur Thavukadu Households with only a single member earning Female-headed households Households with a nonworking male Widows Limited workforce in the household Households with many female children Households engaged in land-based labour Households exclusively working on seaweed collection Households engaged in labour on mechanised boats Households without family property Households without land Households without savings Households surviving on a subsistence income Households owning boats on loan Households who borrow money from vendors Households taking loans to meet normal expenses Households owning disco nets X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 127 . Between 1993 and 1994.3 POOR STAKEHOLDERS ‘better off’ households. The state ranks as the eighth poorest rural state in India and the fourth poorest in urban India.4. including a house. According to the 1991 census. In terms of monthly per capita income. Based on locally defined criteria. or households with little income and savings and with few physical resources. the average household in the Gulf of Mannar exists below or at the poverty line.1 OVERVIEW OF POVERTY According to the South India Human Development report (NCAER. Rs 2226 (~$47) all-India average) (NCAER. ‘less well off ’ and ‘better off ’ indicate that in both Idinthakalpudur and 3. In other words. compared to an all-India level of 37. with savings or with family members working abroad and sending remittances are also considered to be ‘better off’. In the three study villages. particularly in the dynamic coastal context. is described by the following parameters: • Those families having annual household income less than Rs 24 000 (~$511) • Those who do not possess a television • Those who live in huts and tiled roof houses • Those who live in rented houses • Those who do not possess any mechanised vehicle • Those who do not have kitchen items such as a mixer. 1998) average annual household incomes vary between Rs 15 000 (~$319) and Rs 25 000 (~$532).

TABLE 13 CROSS-TABULATIONS OF POVERTY RANK. THAVUKADU % of total households with primary or secondary livelihood option Boat labour Shore-net labour Land-based labour Own boat fishing Family members abroad % of total households with assets Pucca house Tiled house Thatched house Mechanised country boat Non-mechanised country boat Shore net A1 0 4 2 8 4 0 0 13 4 0 4 B 4 19 4 27 0 0 0 35 4 23 0 C 8 46 4 17 0 0 0 52 2 19 0 Note:Although seaweed collection takes place in Indiranagar. In each location. 3. less well off. Female-headed households in the village. while in Indiranagar the majority of households are considered ‘less well off ’ (Table 11). In addition. B.3 IDINTHAKALPUDUR Analysis of occupations and assets with wealth ranking categories (Table 13) again corresponds with the locally defined poverty criteria. together with seaweed collection and occupation of a thatched house. B. However. Thavukadu the majority of households are considered poor. As with Indiranagar. The large ‘less well off ’ category of households in Indiranagar are similarly characterised by boat labour as the main primary or secondary livelihood opportunity. less well off. poor. 128 . IDINTHAKALPUDUR % of total households with primary or secondary livelihood option Own boat fishing Seaweed collection Boat labour Land-based labour % of total households with assets Pucca house Tiled house Thatched house Mechanised country boat Non-mechanised country boat 1 A. boat labour is similarly associated with the ‘poor’ households. all the female-headed households found in Indiranagar fall into the ‘poor’ category. which prevents households from erecting a permanent dwelling for fear of displacement. ‘Better off ’ households occupy pucca (concrete) or tiled houses and are not involved in local land-based labour options. In the case of Thavukadu shore-net labour accounts for the main primary and secondary livelihood option for ‘poor’ households. better off.2 INDIRANAGAR Analysis of wealth ranking against household occupations and assets (Table 12) corresponds with locally defined poverty criteria. regardless of wealth ranking category. C. and indicates that labour on fishing boats comprises the main primary or secondary livelihood opportunity for poor households. ‘better off ’ households are in the minority. A1 4 2 7 0 9 2 0 7 2 B 22 11 4 7 0 18 13 16 9 C 16 22 31 9 0 11 47 2 13 TABLE 12 CROSS-TABULATIONS OF POVERTY RANK. 3. poor. although there is a notable exception. all fall into the ‘poor’ category. B. While ‘better off’ households own the shorenets and have family members working abroad. no data exists to consider its correlation with wealth ranking categories 1 A. C. C.4 THAVUKADU Analysis of wealth ranking categories with household occupations and assets (Table 14) in general corresponds to locally defined poverty criteria. better off. 1 A. This may be explained by the fact that the village exists on the beach on ‘nobody’s’ land. these households also have family working abroad and a considerable number of these households own their own mechanised or non-mechanised country boats. poor. All female-headed households 3. less well off. better off.TABLE 11 DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS AMONGST THREE WEALTH CATEGORIES Wealth ranking category Proportion of households (%) Indiranagar Poor Less well off Better off 27 56 17 Idinthakalpudur Thavukadu 58 31 11 52 35 13 found in the village fall into the ‘poor’ category. namely the entire population occupy thatched houses. INDIRANAGAR % of total households with primary or secondary livelihood option Own boat fishing Boat labour Land-based labour Family working abroad % of total households with assets Pucca house Tiled house Thatched house Mechanised country boat Non-mechanised country boat A1 13 13 2 8 4 10 2 4 10 B 29 42 6 21 0 19 42 15 19 C 4 19 6 4 0 8 17 0 4 TABLE 14 CROSS-TABULATIONS OF POVERTY RANK.

which owe their existence to the reef. lagoons and open sea. These reef-related resources contribute to the building blocks of the livelihoods of the community and ultimately to the livelihood outcomes that they aspire to. fish and shells) (Figure 3). squid. financial.1. economic. with their high biodiversity and productivity. So when fisherfolk reveal that they are dependent on the sea.1. sediment and energy flows. These resources can be grouped under five headings: natural. this includes all the different resources associated with the sea.1).4 REEF LIVELIHOODS nutrient. reef fish. The reef is recognised as being highly productive and fishermen expressed this on many occasions: ‘It is the reef from where everything sprouts and spreads through out the entire sea’ ‘The reef is a natural nursery’ ‘It is because reefs are there and its fertility. Between 83 and 93% of households in the three study villages are engaged in seabased livelihood options. Reefs are perceived as part and parcel of the ocean. human and social resources of ‘poor’ stakeholders in the three communities is summarized in Table 15 and described in detail in the following sections (4.g.1 RESOURCES The contribution of reefs to the natural.1.5). mangroves. At these times. by contributing to positive changes in the outcomes of their livelihoods. In all three villages. we get different varieties of fish to catch and we have to keep different nets’ (Quotes from various participants from three study villages. sea cucumbers and squid (see Annex 2 for a list). These outcome changes are best defined and measured by the community themselves if they are to meaningfully represent positive improvements in their lives. form a key part in this system. The reef also has the potential to directly contribute to the livelihood strategies that the community adopt to use the resources they can access. Coral reefs. providing a temporary resting place or at times a temporary camp for periods of up to a week. sea cucumbers. These direct influencing structures and processes emanate from government. They in turn interact with the longer-term and periodically catastrophic background changes that affect the social. for seaweed. to respond to the structures and processes that influence them and to cope with the background context in which they operate. including seaweeds. including coralline islands. poor stakeholders are highly dependent on the near-shore fisheries for their livelihood. environmental and policy context in which the community exists. A diversity of species are extracted from the reef and adjacent ecosystems.2).) 4. known locally as the Keeri plant. focusing on reef benefits to household resources (Section 4. The following sections describe the many different streams of benefits to the livelihoods of the ‘poor’ households or stakeholders identified in the three study communities. a shrub found on the islands. the private sector and society. In addition the reef can enhance the way the community interacts with the structures and processes that directly influence the way they access and use their resources. for crabs. during seaweed collection and fishing activities (Indiranagar and Idinthakalpudur).1–4. The services that the reef provides to the community ultimately benefits them. These options include direct exploitation of resources in the lagoons and reef flats surrounding the islands (e.g. financial. social and human. physical. to enhancing interactions with direct influencing factors (Section 4. seagrass beds. The islands of the Gulf of Mannar. and to coping with the risks and vulnerabilities associated with indirect influencing factors (Section 4. interlinked by 129 . lobsters. BOX 3 LOCAL PERCEPTIONS OF THE REEF RESOURCE Fisherfolk have an integrated and holistic perception of the ocean. a fact which is widely recognised amongst the fishers from the three communities (Box 3). 4.1 Natural resources The coral reefs in the Gulf of Mannar form an integral part of a wider coastal and ocean ecosystem. as well as exploitation of resources from the seagrass beds and ‘trapped sea’ between the islands and the mainland coast (e. physical. are also an important resource. lobsters. shells. reef fish). shells. Some of these benefits arise because reefs can contribute to the resources that the communities have access to.3). we refer to these as the indirect influencing factors. is an important source of Coral reefs have the potential to provide a stream of benefits to the three coastal communities studied in the Gulf of Mannar.

behaviour of target species Traditional beliefs Beliefs and rituals relating to fishing activities Beliefs associated with island and coral mound Beliefs associated with species Collaborative extraction Women work together to harvest seaweed and shells Crew or labour work collaboratively on fishing boats and in using shore nets Communities1 All All Id. Cash income from fisheries activities Income from local vending of fish Income from boat labour Exchange Marine products exchanged for other products. crab etc. squid.2 Physical resources The coral reefs are well known in their role of providing a physical barrier against wave energy. 4. Id. All coastal villages rely on the reef for such protection and this was widely articulated in the 130 . tides. labour or net mending Low investment Low cost to engage in reef fishery Protein from fish Main source of protein in local diet Discarded fish are free source of food and protein Medicinal benefits Diversity of sea-based products used in local medicines Skills and knowledge Practical skills for working in water Knowledge of different species. In Physical All All All All Financial All All All All Human All All All All All All All Social All All All Id. lobsters. In Id.1. fish & shells harvested from seagrass beds and lagoons Promotes island formation Islands used as a resting place or fishing camp Keeri plant on island harvested for firewood Physical barrier Protects property from storms Provides calm waters for fishing activities in ‘trapped sea’ between islands and mainland and in lagoons around islands Prevents access to larger commercial boats Source of building material Coral mining for lime production (more in the past) Cash income from sea-based products Diversity of products. Idinthakalpudur. In All 1 In. shells. including seaweed. toddy. squid. firewood for cooking on the islands and can be used immediately without need for drying. the use of the islands is now illegal as access to the islands and adjacent waters are prohibited under GOMMBR regulations. shells. e. Indiranagar. coral snakes Knowledge of currents. thus reducing coastal erosion and the impact of storms.g.TABLE 15 A SUMMARY OF REEF BENEFITS TO HOUSEHOLD RESOURCES Resources Natural Benefits from the reef Diverse resource associated with the coral reef Diversity of seaweed. sea cucumbers.g. fish. It should be noted that although the practice is reported to continue. especially of those for exploitation Knowledge of poisonous or dangerous species.Thavukadu. e. lobsters. reef fish Protects adjacent seagrass habitat and lagoons around islands Crabs.T.

including fish vending and boat and shore net labouring. which hit against the reef belt and subside in force by the time they arrive at the shore. Annual income for Figure 3 Fishing in the lagoon inside the reef. fish and crabs may be exchanged for toddy or free labour. For example. some reportedly fired by illegal coral and shells. Potential annual income from sea-based products. and 5% labour on commercial trawlers (Indiranagar and Idinthakalpudur only).1. which contributed to almost 50% of household income. are undertaken in order to obtain free fish or other assistance. due to the nature of its rough waves. who can access these areas in their traditional small wooden country boats. In contrast. Venkataramanujam et al. 4. Palk Bay is believed to be a female sea. Box 4). while the larger commercial trawlers cannot.study villages (especially so in Thavukadu. estimated that 15 000 tons of coral boulders and 10 000 tons of coral debris were being removed annually from the Tuticorin group of islands for lime production. 60% of men in the three study villages are engaged in labouring activities. Harvested products are also widely used in exchange. of which 76% labour on country boats (62% nonmechanised and 14% mechanized). Fish vending is a livelihood opportunity commonly undertaken by women and which has the potential to earn an estimated net income of Rs 3600 (~US$77) per year. ranges from Rs 354 (~$7) per year for shells to Rs 9370 (~$199) per year for fish resources (Table 16). Coral mining was banned with the establishment of the national park in the Gulf of Mannar and although there are reports of some illegal mining. In the three study villages it was estimated that 4% of female-headed households undertook fish vending.3 Financial resources The diversity of products harvested from the reef and associated resources are an important source of income in all three villages and for many poor households provide the only source of income. As well as protecting property from storm damage and erosion. In the past. who cannot access the shallow reef areas. it also acts as a barrier to larger commercial boats. However. particularly for female-headed households. Income is also generated through fisheries activities. In some instances. lacking a boat themselves. where like a woman the waters are calmer most of the time. Not only does the reef provide a barrier to wave action. This is a significant benefit for the small-scale local fishers from the study communities. but once they awake due to wind or storms the damage is heavy for there is no reef belt to control the action of the waves. coral mining was a significant industry in the Gulf of Mannar. such as net mending. BOX 4 THE MALE AND FEMALE SEAS OF THE GULF OF MANNAR AND PALK BAY In Thavukadu locals believe the Gulf of Mannar to be a male sea. Coral is also directly exploited for use in producing lime for construction. the reef ’s protection also creates calmer waters for fishing activities in the ‘trapped sea’ between the islands and the mainland coast and in shallow lagoons adjacent to the islands. In 1981. Such exchange is a customary practice and way of life in all three study villages. Approximately. estimated by local poor stakeholders. 131 . activities such as net mending. 18% labour on shore nets (Thavukadu only). there has been a considerable reduction in this activity. providing an income generating opportunities for many of the local fisherfolk. Boat or shore net labour is a livelihood option commonly undertaken by men from the poorer households. lime kilns still operate inland from the coast (Figure 4).

simply requiring a bag or sack to collect the harvest. Figure 5 Mechanised country boats.1.4 Human resources Fish and other sources of edible products (e. Boatbased fishing activities are carried out from traditional wooden country boats. of which 66% are small non-mechanised wooden boats with a sail and oars for rowing. with the extent of use varying depending on availability of different species. Common species. Shallow reef flats and lagoons can be accessed by foot and seaweed and shell collection is typically undertaken in this way. labour activities ranges from Rs 3420 to Rs 8625 (~$73–$184). 132 . known locally as Vathai. and the remainder are slightly larger mechanised wooden boats. depending on the type of labour and frequency of employment.Figure 4 Lime kilns in operation inland from the coast at Keelakari. For widows and female-headed households with low incomes and no fishermen to bring back catch. while alternative sources involve extra effort and expense to obtain. crabs) are important sources of food and protein for the coastal communities. discards of smaller fish and crabs are an important source of food and protein. TABLE 16 ESTIMATED RANGE OF ANNUAL INCOME FROM SEA-BASED PRODUCTS Product Estimated annual net income US Dollar per household1 (Indian equivalent 2 Rupees – Rs) 960–1150 354–1200 540–2850 1200 1070–9370 3280–4025 2750–7760 20–24 8–26 11–61 26 23–199 70–86 59–165 Seaweed Shells Lobsters Sea cucumbers Fish Squid Crabs 1 Income estimated through consensus of focus group discussion. range associated with variations between villages. Fish is consumed daily throughout the year by all households in the three study villages. Fish is generally considered as a ‘free’ source of food and protein. The financial resources required to engage in the near-shore fishery is generally low. known as Vallams (Figure 5). The use of marine species for medicinal purposes was found to be extensive in all three villages. Reef and reef-associated resources are accessible using only simple technology. 2 Exchange rate Rs47: US$1.g. which is locally available. 4.

reef species and fishery are the focus for a variety of religious beliefs and rituals in all villages (a selection of which are described in Box 6). Collaborative activities associated with the fishery also provide a significant social resource. Thus. Locals believe that Appa Island is the home of an island God (Santhanamariamman) and by pleasing this God they will be protected from evil spirits when they stay on the island. nets or labour. The fisherfolk believe that a rare bird called Antrada Paravai (Daily bird) leaves its dropping on the coral reef. If the Ponnamber is eaten by the Dugong. Island herb the Anjalai herb is used to treat sea snakes bites. fishing for crabs with nets. while Kuzhi crab is used to reduce urea. are available throughout the year and taken regularly as a preventative medicine against anaemia. In early days women used to wear a wedlock pendant designed in the shape of the Tonga fish. and providing a chance for women to gossip away from the house. local fishermen will undertake a ritual called Neeratuthal where they clean their boat and apply Kungumam (saffron) and sandalwood paste and light camphor. Collaboration is also a necessity for many fishing operations (e. or shore-net operations). Sea horses and sea lizards are believed to help heart problems Sea turtle meat is used to treat piles. the human resource of skills and knowledge provide an important insurance for poorer households against the uncertainties of seabased livelihoods. 133 .1. such as Mural and Soodai fish. Dugong the fat is believed to control digestive disorders. Men and women from the three study communities were able to identify over 100 different species associated with the near-shore 4. Such skills and knowledge are essential to help ensure success in harvest and to avoid danger and they enable the local communities to exploit the diverse resource despite inadequate financial capital for sophisticated equipment or years of formal education. Approximately 30% of households in the three study villages rely on collaborative boat or shorenet labour as their primary livelihood opportunity.There is also a special festival (Pongal) once a year when locals from many nearby villages come to the island to offer prayers and animal sacrifice.The droppings are called Ponnamber and it is believed that finding these brings luck to the fishing catch. Fishermen believe that finding Winnamber brings even more luck to the fishing catch. The reef. these are washed away by tides and finally reach the island shores. and knowledge relating to fish species and the physical characteristics and properties of the sea and resources. and celebrate. providing safety in numbers. Shark the meat is believed to help muscle development. It is believed that worship to Sudalaimadan will protect people from the danger associated with this place. including practical skills for working in water and with boats and fishing gear. Collaborative work is also considered the basic nature of women’s seaweed and shell collection: supporting the hiring of a boat to reach the islands. the Dugong’s droppings are known as Winnamber. People worship here throughout the year each time they arrive on the island. It is also believed that another god (Muniyasamy) resides in a coral mound just nearby the island and close to an area known for dangerous currents and an underwater cave. as well as unexpected wealth and all-round well-being to the family. and it acts as a means of sharing access to resources with other households. The knowledge and skills associated with exploiting the reef and reef-associated resources were found to be extensive.5 Social resources Traditional beliefs are part of religious life in all three study villages and beliefs and worship are important ways for people to overcome the insecurities associated with their livelihoods. BOX 6 A SELECTION OF TRADITIONAL BELIEFS At dusk every Tuesday (the weekly holiday from fishing). forming an important part of social networks and trust between members of the community. Fish Soodai and Mural fish have high iron content and are used to prevent anaemia. while the meat is thought to help muscle development.g.BOX 5 A LIST OF LOCALLY EXPLOITED MEDICINAL PROPERTIES OF MARINE SPECIES Crab varieties Kan nandu crab is useful for coughs and colds. The Tonga fish or Box fish is available only in the reef area. In order to avoid the dangerous currents and whirlpools these places are identified as the abode of local deities and fisherfolk are warned not to approach these particular places in order to escape from the wrath of deities. ecosystem and demonstrated an understanding of behaviours and potential dangers of certain species. such as access to boats. Other examples of medicinal uses of marine species are outlined in Box 5.

4). training. which have developed for products such as seaweed and crabs (Figure 6). Market regulations controlling the size and condition of commercial catches also have positive impacts for the local communities. These positive influences are summarised in Table 17 and discussed in more detail in the following sections (4. Directly and indirectly. institutions. in particular female-headed households. which are particularly valuable for poor households. awareness and development of alternative livelihood initiatives. The Gulf of Mannar and its fragile coral reef ecosystem is also the focus of environmental policies promoting the conservation and protection of natural resources. In All All 1 In.T. providing a cheap source of discarded fish products.2.2. Idinthakalpudur. These markets provide a constant source of income earning opportunities for an estimated 45% of households in the study villages. 4.1–4.1 Policies The diversity of reef and reef-associated products available in the Gulf of Mannar have provided opportunities for fisheries development policies promoting the growth of export markets. Indiranagar.2 DIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS Coral reef and associated coastal and marine resources are the focus of fisheries and environment-related policies.4. 134 . Id. organisations and social relations. alongside natural resource TABLE 17 Influencing factors Policies A SUMMARY OF REEF BENEFITS TO DIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS Benefits from the reef Fisheries development Export policies have promoted the growth of markets for products such as seaweed and crab Market policies controlling the size and condition of commercial catches result in discards of smaller fish or lobster which are an important cheap food source Conservation Conservation policies recognising reef biodiversity and importance of habitat and species protection have attracted funding and programmes Fisheries Department Support skills development Revenue Department Provide pensions and relief to widows of fishermen Market traders and middlemen Provision of market outlet for small producers Source of fishing gear and credit Source of information Local management Community controls govern access of outsiders to fishing areas adjacent to the village or village landing site Fisheries Unions Common voice and lobbying capacity for small-scale fisherfolk dependent on near-shore marine resources Restriction of commercial trawling activities in the ‘trapped sea’ between islands and mainland coastline to reduce conflicts with small-scale fisherfolk NGO – TRRM Promote local community development and participation through networks and self help groups Women Women play a direct role in harvest of shallow reef resources of seaweed and shells Women play an essential role in cleaning crab nets Women are involved in fish vending and processing Communities1 All All All Institutions All (potential) All All All All T Organisations All All All Social relations Id. and in particular the biodiversity of the reef and associated coastal ecosystems. These policies have attracted considerable funding supporting research and development programmes promoting community participation. therefore.2.Thavukadu. the reef and associated resources give rise to structures and processes that can positively influence the lives of poor reefdependent people.

Examples include GCRMNand ICRMN-sponsored projects initiating participatory assessments of the socio-economic status of coastal communities. Relevant local institutions in the 4.e. The services provided by traders and middlemen are relied upon throughout the year and allow small scale producers (i. on which some elderly widows are completely dependent to support their livelihoods. Although the positive impact of these programmes for the poor coastal communities has so far been limited (with alternative livelihood initiatives remaining at experimental stages). however. are key institutions in local fisheries activities in all three study communities.Figure 6 Crab catch for export. A fee is imposed on outsiders to operate shore-nets adjacent to the village or use the village landing site. a UNDP-GEF project undertaking coastal community development and a Pepsi-sponsored programme to develop artificial production of seaweed. through their concern for the development and welfare of the local fishing communities. In Thavukadu. through the provision of pensions and relief to widows of fishermen. training in hygienic handling and processing of fisheries products). there has been considerable benefit through a heightened level of awareness amongst the three study villages of their common situation. although they have potentially benefited women from other coastal villages in the Gulf of Mannar. The success of the union has been demonstrated 135 . 4.3 Organisations Reef and reef-associated fisheries and the dependent small-scale fisherfolk are the target of local organisations.2. in order to improve women’s livelihood status. credit and information. when expenditure is high. Thus. with 80% of small-scale fisherfolk (men and women) active members. Through local extension offices the Fisheries Department have recently begun targeting women’s groups through the provision of training to introduce new activities or enhance existing ones (e. which becomes a safety net at times of crisis or during festival periods. three study villages. not only in securing local access to near-shore resources. The Revenue Department. Participation and reliance on unions has strengthened in recent years in response to degrading reef resources. concerned both with welfare and empowerment of the local fishing communities but also the conservation and sustainable use of the reef resources. has provided important benefits to the study villages. the most important organisation at the village level is the Fisheries Union. controlling access to near-shore resources by outsiders. all the fishermen from the three study villages) to access higher value export markets. increasing conflicts with commercial fishing operations and the restrictions imposed by GOMMBR. For the small-scale fisherfolk. Reef and reef-associated fisheries are also the focus of numerous private traders and middlemen. include the Fisheries Department and Revenue Department. they provide common benefit.2 Institutions Coral reef and associated resources and the near-shore. gear. Idinthakalpudur. this represents the only easily accessible form of credit. providing access to markets. near-shore resources are also the focus of local community management. who apart from government departments. but also providing a fund to meet common village needs. smallscale fisheries they support are the focus of various local institutions. These opportunities have yet to benefit women from the three study villages. For the poor households in all villages.2. conservation and management.g. Significant potential exists for future benefits through programmes promoting greater participation in resource management and greater support for enhancing the sustainability of resource-based livelihoods. These fees are kept as a common fund and spent on village festivals or common expenses. The union provides the only common channel through which problems and issues can be voiced by local fisherfolk at higher levels.

and a ban on the use of a metal tool for seaweed harvest (Figure 7). for example fishermen often commented that without women to clean the crab nets. In particular reef resources have provided an opportunity for women to play a direct role in harvesting seaweed and shell resources. local NGOs also provide important benefits.2. For example. women also take part in cleaning crab nets (Figure 8) and in fish processing and vending. an awareness which was the product in part of efforts associated with the GOMMBR. The importance of the women’s involvement is also demonstrated in their active participation in the Fisheries Union and local NGO (TRRM) activities. thereby safeguarding the resource for the local small scale fishers and reducing overall conflict in the fishing industry. with on average 5% of female-headed households lacking any male labour. as well as individuals’ personal observations of the impacts of destructive practices.3). In the study area the NGO TRRM has been active in promoting local community development and participation through networks and self-help groups in 90 of the 98 coastal villages in the Gulf of Mannar. regardless of caste.3 INDIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS The contribution of the reef and reef resources to the communities’ ability to cope with the risks or opportunities associated with the background factors of seasonality. In some villages in the Gulf of Mannar (not the three study villages) some women are also involved in harvesting from boats and diving for shells and sea cucumbers. 4. 4. Beyond their involvement in direct harvest. These are amongst the poorer households and constitute on average 13% of households in the study villages.4 Social relations The accessibility and open access nature of shallow reef flats and lagoons provide opportunities for all stakeholders. It is also often remarked that the women from communities of the same Mooper caste found inland are not as outgoing and independent as those among the coastal communities.through the restriction of commercial trawling activities within the ‘trapped sea’ between the islands and the mainland coast. which may largely be due to their greater involvement in fishery activities. Almost 80% of the adult population of the coastal villages in Ramanathapuram district participate in TRRM activities and 33% of the TRRM staff belong to the coastal communities. It has also been demonstrated through the union’s locally agreed ban on dynamite fishing and coral mining (reinforcing the official government ban). it was frequently noted by locals that in locations where extensive coral mining had taken place the force of waves had also increased. Of a total of 305 women in the three study villages. shocks and trends is summarised in Table 18 and described in the following sections (4. For female-headed households. reef-based fisheries opportunities are critical in securing food and income. The role of women in the small-scale fisheries of the Gulf of Mannar is a key factor in providing them with independence to control income and spending and support the household. approximately one third are members of the Fisheries Union and their membership in TRRM is actively promoted. 136 . Through their concern for the local small-scale fisherfolk dependent on reef and reef-associated resources. Figure 7 Village elder with seaweed scraping tool. class or gender.3. These bans were the outcome of a common consensus that these activities were both dangerous and destructive. For widows the income from reef-based products is often the only source of income apart from their widow’s pension.1–4. it would not be possible for them to go to sea frequently enough to support their household.3. Their role is often seen as pivotal in fisheries activities. it was also widely acknowledged that the use of the metal tool for seaweed harvest was preventing regeneration of the seaweed and damaging the reef.

In. Id. fish vending or ownership of a crab net is a source of livelihood and a coping mechanism for female-headed households or widows During drought periods reef resources were relied on heavily for food and income Reduces impact Reduces impact and damage from cyclones Market growth Export market for crabs and seaweed Tourist market for shells as curios and jewellery Communities1 All Id. 137 .Thavukadu. Indiranagar. Idinthakalpudur.T.Figure 8 A woman cleaning crab nets in Idinthakalpudur. (T) Id. TABLE 18 A SUMMARY OF REEF BENEFITS TOWARDS COPING WITH INDIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS Influencing factors Seasonality Benefits from the reef Complementarity and stability Fisheries opportunities are available in one form or another throughout the year Seaweed and shells provide income when other fisheries resources are low Low season for agriculture (April–June) corresponds with peak seasons for squid and crabs Crab and lobster resources are available throughout the year Safety net Seaweed and shell collection. (T) All Shocks All All All All All Trends 1 In.

with the peak season for squid and crab resources corresponding with the low season for agriculture in Idinthakalpudur and to a lesser extent in Thavukadu. 4. She decided to work in the sea.2 Shocks The accessibility of the shallow reef resources provide a vital coping strategy for female-headed households (Box 7). which washed away Dhaniskodi.3. When her husband was diagnosed as a cancer patient. Elderly villagers remember the 1964 cyclone. Ramanathapuram district is considered drought prone and during the severe drought of 1966 and 1973–1974 coastal communities and landless agricultural labourers had to ‘eat fish or starve’. 138 .1 Seasonality The diversity of near-shore marine resources enables households to exploit the fishery throughout the year. Since then all four children in the household had to depend upon the sole income of their mother. the eastern most village in the Gulf of Mannar. At the same time. for a month she could not do anything. encouraged by fisheries development policies. For 6 months of the year it is risky to do fish trading as the fish prices are high and it is difficult for small traders to get a margin. Complementarity also occurs between fishery and agricultural production. Thus. and recall how those villages close to the reef and islands were protected from the extreme weather. She thought of committing suicide. fish vending). I am here to take care of your family’. but now he is aged and incapacitated due to abdominal surgery. have stimulated the growth of high value export markets (as outlined in Section 4. The majority of households in the three study villages are dependent on fisheries as their only source of income to meet growing household expenditures.3 Trends Reef and reef-related resources.Through fish trading and seaweed collection she feels that it is the sea which has sustained her and her family. Approximately 50% of female-headed household income comes from sea-based sources (seaweed. the tourist market in Rameswaram for shells (as curios and jewellery) has also grown.2.When her husband was active and alive.1). crab nets. She harvests seaweed and shells. During this period she goes to the sea to harvest seaweed and shells along with other women in the village. But the mother sea consoled her by saying ‘Come. The presence of diverse markets (local and export) for reef and reef-associated products has supported commercialisation of the small-scale fisheries and likewise the opportunities for income generation amongst the small-scale fishers of the coastal communities. The reef resources have also played an important role in the past by providing a safety net during severe cyclones and drought. there are opportunities as labour on mechanised boats.4.3. with the peak in harvest of different species complementing one another throughout the year and providing overall livelihood stability. There is also a recognition amongst all villagers of the reef ’s role in protecting against the forces of cyclones. she is knowledgeable about the various types of species and which can be exploited for income. increasing to 70% from crab nets in peak seasons. with shell collection carried out in all villages and BOX 7 THE REEF AS A SAFETY NET FOR FEMALEHEADED HOUSEHOLDS Female-headed household 1: The husband of a local woman was a fisherman. there was no need for her to go to the sea. shells. He was forced to give up fishing because of abdominal cancer of which he died.3. Since the local woman realised that she would have to support her family she quickly learned fish trading from her husband and for the last 6 years she has been fish trading in the vending place permanently taken for lease by her husband in Keelakari fish market. 4. while crabs and lobsters provide a source of income more or less constantly throughout the year. These growing markets have brought benefits to all study communities. approximately one-third of households in Indiranagar and Idinthakalpudur undertaking seaweed collection. seaweed and shell resources provide income when other fisheries resources are low. especially since the construction of Pamban Bridge in 1984 and the associated increase in tourists. Female-headed household 2: The husband of a local woman from Idinthakalpudur was both fishing and fish trading. Even during the windy months of August–October when nonmechanised country boats cannot access the sea.

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND IMPACTS IN THE GULF OF MANNAR Changes in reef-derived livelihood Decreasing catch in terms of size. coral mining and lobbying support for small-scale fishers • Increasing competition and low returns • Increasing livelihood insecurity (food and income) • Increasing conflicts between fishers. The major changes. especially between the small-scale and commercial sectors • More members of family have become involved in fishery activities. e. due to diversification • Increasing income security.g. promoting ban on dynamite fishing. especially between the small-scale and commercial sectors • Increasing dependency on traders/middlemen to access markets and gear • Increasing reliance on credit from traders/middlemen • Increasing participation in fisheries unions lobbying for support for small-scale fishers • Increasing income insecurity for small-scale fishers • High value products and market demand encourage more people to take up harvest as livelihood opportunity • Increasing dependency on traders/middlemen to provide specific gears and access to markets of export species • Increasing reliance on credit from traders/middlemen • Increasing income security. quantity and variety Contributing factors • Increasing coastal population • Destructive fishing practices (dynamite fishing began during the 1980s) • Use of nets with smaller mesh size Impact on strategies and outcomes • Increasing conflicts between fishers.5 CHANGES. which impact upon the strategies households are able to adopt and the ultimate TABLE 19 A SUMMARY OF KEY CHANGES IN REEF-DERIVED LIVELIHOODS. increasing numbers of species specific nets) Growth of commercial markets for marine products (crabs. causes and consequences identified by poor households in the three study villages are outlined in Table 19 below. shells) • Increasing commercialisation of fishery • Fisheries development policies of government • Growth of markets and emergence of traders and middlemen who promote and supply new fishing gears • Diversification and increasing demand of inland market • Increasing demand for seaweed products for Agar processing industries and for export • Trade policies promote development of export markets • Growth of tourism due to improved access to Pamban Island (bridge construction 1984) • Increasing awareness of value of certain shell species. use of synthetic materials for fishing nets. Livelihoods are dynamic and are constantly changing in response to direct and indirect influencing factors. CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES outcomes of those strategies. due to diversification and added value for the reef products through market growth • Some locals reportedly continue to access islands and adjacent shallow reefs and seagrass beds illegally and harvest prohibited species • Loss of ownership and responsibility for resources • Increasing reliance on unions to voice problems and deal with conflicts Increasing technology and mechanisation of fishing (including mechanisation of boats. including women • Women’s involvement has resulted in increasing workload • Injury due to dynamite fishing has resulted in loss of livelihood options for those affected • Increased participation in fisheries unions. seaweed. sacred chank as well as greater buying power amongst tourists (before the market was limited to more affluent families) • Growth in environmental legislation as a result of international and national concern for biodiversity • Recognition of declining reef and near-shore resources • Official declaration of islands and surrounding waters as GOMMBR • General recognition of local resources users as ‘source’ of negative impacts on biodiversity • Increasing legislation controlling exploitation and access to resources • Emergence of regulations to control access to near-shore resources by large scale commercial fishing operations Loss of access to near-shore marine resource 139 .

the effort expended on fishing activities has increased. With mechanisation and increasing technology. This has led to restrictions on the typical seabased livelihoods of the coastal communities of the Gulf of Mannar and has displaced local communities from using the adjacent natural resources.2. crab nets). supporting small-scale fisherfolk in entering commercial fisheries and accessing markets. There is also potential for greater participation in resource management through research and development programmes supported by environmental policies and donor interests in promoting sustainable use of coral reef resources (Section 4. This became such an issue that it led to increasing participation in the Fisheries Union and ultimately the emergence of regulations controlling access to near-shore resources. lacking the financial resources and social networks to access new innovations. the human impact has been the loss of household food security.3 Loss of access Recognition of the declining resources in the Gulf of Mannar. As resources have become more scarce. have had both positive and negative outcomes for people’s lives. in particular the poor households and femaleheaded households. combined with increasing awareness and buying power of tourists. Ultimately.2. 5.Changes in reef-derived livelihoods in the Gulf of Mannar. traders and middlemen provide important services. focused primarily on the resources in the ‘trapped sea’. including high value species. which have promoted overexploitation (the use of nets with small mesh sizes) and caused damage to the resource base (dynamite fishing). who supply new nets specific to the target species for export (e.1 POSITIVE OUTCOMES The most significant positive outcome in the lives of the three study villages has been the growth of commercial markets for marine products. associated with improved access since the construction of Pamban bridge. with no access to viable alternatives.2. Legislation has largely viewed the local resource users as the ‘source’ of resource degradation and declining biodiversity. In the Gulf of Mannar. Although presently the enforcement of legislation concerning the use of the islands and adjacent shallow reefs and seagrass areas (Section 1. declining resources and loss of access.g. 5. supported by government policy and the emergence of traders and middlemen. As mentioned above. demanding greater involvement of the household. this has also created a dependency and increasing reliance on traders and middlemen as 5. market growth has been the product of increasing and diversifying demands from inland markets. With near-shore resources forming the basis of most people’s livelihoods. it has the potential to greatly impact upon local fishing communities.1). This was attributed to the increasing fishing effort of the expanding coastal population.1 Increasing technology While the commercialisation of fisheries has brought about positive outcomes. For the small-scale fisherfolk this has largely been supported by traders and middlemen who have provided the infrastructure to access different markets. Increasing technology has also brought about a growing dependency on traders and middlemen.1). Supported by the diversity of reef products available. have become marginalised by a larger and more resourceful commercial sector. 5. their decline has had a considerable impact. 5. so far reports suggest there is little integration of the Fisheries Union activities. together with increasing international and national concern for coral reef resources and biodiversity have led to the emergence of environmental policies and legislation promoting coral reef and species conservation. has also increased market opportunities. With growing markets local livelihoods have become commercialised and income security has been enhanced.2. there has been a positive side-effect through the increasing awareness of local communities and participation in the Fisheries Union promoting local bans on destructive fishing practices and lobbying for support for small-scale fishers. However. particularly female members.2. it has also been a contributing factor to increasing levels of technology and mechanisation of the fishery. both in terms of the size of fish and their variety. which is frequently inequitable and exploits the small-scale fisherfolk leading to income insecurity. These changes can be attributed to three main causes.2. where artisanal fisherfolk frequently lose their nets in collisions with commercial trawlers. this has resulted in increasing conflicts between commercial and artisanal fisherfolk. 140 . this has lead to further pressure on the existing resources and while the financial impact of the declining catch has been buffered to an extent by the growth of high value markets. combined with fishing practices. as well as the growth of export markets (as described in Section 4.2 Declining resources The general consensus amongst local fisherfolk in the three study villages was that fish catches had declined over the last two decades. Participation in the Fisheries Union is enabling fishing communities to voice concerns and obtain better support. and consequently has prohibited many of their activities. namely increasing technology. Box 1) is weak. Loss or damage to nets is a significant risk for small-scale fisherfolk. or development of community participation in management decisions concerning the GOMMBR. However. such that commercial trawlers and small-scale fisheries activities are restricted to separate days of the week.2 NEGATIVE OUTCOMES Many changes in people’s lives in the three study villages have not been positive. Despite the overwhelmingly negative outcomes of resource decline. Growth in the tourist market for shell products at Rameswaram. a source credit. small-scale fishers.

such as female-headed households or households with many female children. separated from the mainland coast by a relatively shallow ‘trapped sea’. processors. supporting the majority of households. Amongst the coastal fishing communities of the Gulf of Mannar. whose shallow and complex structure and high biological diversity prevent access by larger industrial operations. fishermen. shallow lagoons and large areas of seagrass. the incidence of poverty in some places is high. the accessible shallow reef flats and shallow lagoons provide an important keystone resource when bad weather makes other resources inaccessible. Typically poverty is associated with those lacking financial and physical resources. The coral reefs of the Gulf of Mannar form an integral part of the coastal ecosystem: creating the islands. in general the diversity of livelihoods is limited and in the heavily populated and drought prone coast alternatives are few. providing important sources of food. with the average household income below the national poverty line and the majority of households in the current study classifying themselves as ‘poor’ or ‘less well off ’. Many poor households depend on the reef and reef associated resources as their main source of protein and income throughout the entire year. it was also associated with households with a limited workforce. Thus the reef and near-shore resources are at the centre of the culture and way of life of the coastal people of the Gulf of Mannar and have been so for many centuries. on the southern border of Tamil Nadu. is also an accessible sink The Gulf of Mannar. despite positive social development indicators. the extent of the benefits arising from the reef and reef-associated resources reaches far beyond the coastal villages themselves. protecting their homes and property from the full impact of cyclones and providing a source of food during periods of drought. This provides a crucial fall back. some of which relate to particular areas of reef or particular reef species. sheltering the lagoons and seagrass habitats. merchants. the near-shore resources provide a critical safety net and coping mechanism in the face of sudden crises. The open access reef resource. when faced with the sudden loss of the main provider. Limited opportunities are available for some households as BOX 8 MULTIPLE FISHERIES-BASED OPPORTUNITIES ‘Take for example the lobster that we catch in the reef area. For others. Along the coastline live a large and growing population. For these communities. it also offers an important means for women to gain some independent income and can increase their control over household finances. who are well connected to the rest of the state and local and external markets. However. They provide shelter to their homes and property. seasonal lows in agricultural production are compensated by peak seasons in certain near-shore resources. food. on the eastern side of the Gulf. livelihood opportunities are defined by caste and are almost entirely associated with the traditional small-scale near-shore fishery. For some. and are the focus of an extensive knowledge system and diverse range of skills. it is unimaginable to comprehend all these people and their activities. and allow their involvement in direct harvesting of seaweed and shell resources. or in tourism activities associated with the pilgrim centre at Rameswaram. For the coastal communities the coral reefs and near-shore resources are the basis of their livelihood.’ 141 . marketing and mending of the gears and nets. is home to an extensive system of shallow coral reef.6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS labourers in coastal agriculture. Government support and services are well developed and the people of the Gulf of Mannar in general enjoy above average standards of health and education. Complex traditions and rituals are associated with the fishery. people managing cold storage. However. it throws open lots of opportunities for various groups of people – a fish sacrifices itself to sustain the human life. fringing 21 low lying coralline islands and sheltering mangroves. and providing a nursery and feeding ground for ocean going fish. As articulated by a local fisherman (Box 8). For these poor households. poverty was found to be significant. it generates a chain reaction. People associated with the production. For coastal farmers. in particular among the small coastal villages existing on the edge of development and often in marginal lands on the sandy shoreline. export and inland distribution. For female-headed households or widows the shallow reef resources can be accessed by foot. which requires little investment and simple local technology to exploit. Before a piece of fish is taken by a consumer. sources of income. it creates social relations. medicines. the coral reef and nearshore resources are the foundation of livelihoods. For small scale traditional fishery operations the coral reef is a refuge.

reef products have been exported from the Gulf of Mannar for nearly two thousand years. combined. how people interact with it and to promote sustainable development and greater community participation in resource management. when pearls were traded with the Roman Empire. In addition to these impacts. There is clearly an urgent need for local needs and priorities to be linked into wider societal objectives for the reefs of the Gulf of Mannar to create a solution which is locally applicable and equitable. However. Thus. national and local levels. driven both by their own subsistence needs.for migrants. helping reduce the risks communities face in light of increasing resource degradation and ensure the sustainability of the reef itself. It has also seen increasing international and national funding for research and development programmes to better understand the resource. many of the benefits which the coral reef and near-shore resources of the Gulf of Mannar have provided for many centuries are beginning to seriously decline. The reef is also being degraded by the impacts of externalities from agriculture. Concern for the degrading reef and near-shore resources and the consequent loss of biodiversity is one expressed at global. The growing population is placing increasing pressures on the reef resource. It has led to national policies and legislation aiming to conserve the Gulf of Mannar resources (through the GOMMBR and associated laws and regulations). lacking financial and physical resources. In many cases. whose waste products concentrate in the shallow waters of the Gulf and contribute to the overall degradation of the near-shore environment. However. These responses at various levels have great potential to benefit both the local communities and the resource they depend on. as well as local and external demands for reef products. with only limited inclusion of the complexity of interactions between the local communities and the reef resource and the needs and aspirations of local poor reef stakeholders. Natural diseases and outbreaks of coral predators also take their toll. global warming and increasing sea surface temperatures have caused widespread coral bleaching and coral mortality throughout the Gulf of Mannar. this is leading to over-harvesting and damage to the reef resource. feeding the demand of both a growing local population and high value export markets. Indeed. such that reef dependence is becoming the source of vulnerability amongst the coastal communities. in support and extending existing government bans. The diversity of reef products offers a multitude of market opportunities. these pressures are acting to increasingly erode the benefits provided by the reef and threaten the role of the reef resource in supporting local livelihoods. so far the local evidence suggests that these efforts have yet to work in synergy and the balance has been towards the priorities of reef conservation. industries and the high population density bordering the Gulf of Mannar. 142 . Concern at local levels has also been apparent through increasing participation in the local Fisheries Union and the emergence of a number of locally agreed bans on destructive activities. Such lucrative export markets offer considerable opportunities and have attracted many outsiders to the Gulf to profit from the rich resources.

Pomeroy RS. IMM and SPEECH. Venkataramani G. Coral resources of Tuticorin (S. Sukumaran N. 1995 2 Government of Tamil Nadu. Australian Institute of Marine Science (251). Oxford University Press (442). Gulf of Mannar GCRMN pilot monitoring report. India) and methods of their conservation. Statistical Handbook 2000. Deshmukh and Venkataramani. Kumaraguru A.tn. Manila.gov. Commissioner of Fisheries.tn. Socioeconomic manual for coral reef management.7 REFERENCES AND NOTES NCAER. 2000. Society for Social Forestry Research and Development Tamil Nadu and TATA Economic Consultancy Services (84). website: http://www. Case study guidelines: Reef livelihoods assessment project. 2001. Commissioner of Fisheries. Madurai Kamaraj University (81). website: http://www. 1998.gov. Chennai (87). Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve. Department of Economics and Statistics. SSFRD. 2002. Venkataramanujam K. Townsley P. Government of Tamil Nadu. Gulf of Mannar marine biosphere socioeconomic sample survey. South India Human Development Report. Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies (99–167). 2001. Deshmukh S.in 143 . Integrated Coastal and Marine Area Management Project. 1981. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Corals and Coral Reefs. DES. NOTES 1 For example: DOD. Resources Informations Systems for Gulf of Mannar (India). 1998. 2001. Pollnac RB. Philippines 1 (259–262) REFERENCES Bunce LL. 2001.in 3 Government of Tamil Nadu. DOD. 1995. Santhanam R.

Thus. and Bunce et al. refer to IMM and SPEECH (2002). 144 . 2 Benefit criteria tables These tables were used to assist in tracking and compiling the information collected in the field in order to ensure the following was collected for the different poor stakeholder groups: • • • • • • • • Numbers of beneficiaries Types of beneficiary Importance of/dependence on benefit Seasonality and frequency of benefit Role of reef in benefit (direct/indirect) Alternative benefit History of benefit Cost of benefit. While this is too small a sample size to be representative of the full diversity of the study area. This was principally undertaken by research groups reviewing the RLA Global Overview document and SLA literature. The process involves a series of research tools. The benefit criteria tables describe these benefits. in the following series of steps.ANNEX 1 OVERVIEW OF RLA METHODOLOGY This annex gives a brief outline of the methodology developed during the Gulf of Mannar RLA case study. Step 1: Village selection Time available for the study limits field research to only three small villages or communities in the study area. but by no means exhaustive list of questions and in the time available for the research it will clearly be an impossible task to find an answer to each question. The information required for village selection may be obtained from secondary data or it may be necessary to organise consultations with village representatives and undertake a village livelihood matrix. Furthermore. two guides were applied: 1 Reef livelihoods checklist The reef livelihoods checklist was developed based on the Global Overview. avoiding extremes). the first stage of the village selection process involves understanding the major differences in the study area in terms of: • • • • Livelihood options and diversity Access to the reef Seasonal variability of livelihoods Community organisation. It is an extensive. selection of the villages should take into account the major differences in the area and represent as far as possible a ‘norm’ or ‘average’ village or community (i. IMPLEMENTING THE RESEARCH PROCESS The research involves a participatory process between the field team and case study communities. it is likely that new questions will arise as our understanding develops. The research process undertook the following series of steps: (1) Understanding the livelihoods approach and reef livelihoods framework (2) Applying the reef livelihoods framework (3) Implementing the research process • • • • • • Village selection Community level analysis Poor stakeholder identification Poor stakeholder focus group analysis Individual household and key informant level analysis Validation.e. The RLA case study methodology was based on DFID’s Sustainable Livelihoods Approach1 (SLA) and employed and developed a range of participatory research techniques (see IMM and SPEECH. For a more detailed description of methods. It is intended to be used as a guide to help focus the use of research tools. It is a checklist of questions concerning the type of benefits which may be expected to arise from coral reefs to all aspects of a person’s livelihood. suggest means of verifying those indicators and provide some examples.. APPLYING THE REEF LIVELIHOODS FRAMEWORK To assist in the process of applying the reef livelihoods concept to the realities of fieldwork and the specific outputs required. UNDERSTANDING THE LIVELIHOODS APPROACH AND REEF LIVELIHOODS FRAMEWORK Developing an understanding of the livelihoods approach and its adaptation to reef livelihoods helped focus the research towards the specific outputs required. 2002. 2000). which are used to apply the reef livelihoods framework guided by the checklist and benefit criteria. provide indicators for their measurement.

their service level and their relationships. Step 4: Poor stakeholder focus group analysis Once a group of poor stakeholders was identified. Step 3: Poor stakeholder identification For further analysis of the types and extents of benefits from the reef to poor members of the village or community a group of poor stakeholders was identified for focus group work. exchange networks and collaboration • Intrahousehold distribution of income. whereby the findings were presented back to the community in an accessible format for their final comments and approval. linkages. Overlapping livelihood analysis: to understand household livelihood strategies and establish those mixed or diverse strategies and crosscheck who is involved in such strategies.ac. Venn diagrams: to understand local institutions.org 145 . resource conservation practices and social/ religious beliefs and activities associated with places and local knowledge of resources and resource use.livelihoods. income and expenditure patterns. markets. the focus group work applied the following research tools: Seasonal diagrams: to understand seasonal diversities and fluctuations in terms of access to resources. the following series of tools are used at a community level: Social mapping: to develop an overall view of the village composition. beliefs. occupational options and gender roles. This was assisted by the use of field tracking tables. including: • Trends. historical knowledge base and resource use patterns from oral histories • Traditional knowledge. occupational access to and control of resource areas by vulnerable groups. and patterns of migration. and develop an understanding of key issues. On-going cross-checking and triangulation of data was essential to ensure the information collected was valid. return. employment. Identifying the poor stakeholder group uses information obtained during social mapping and wealth ranking exercises. Trend analysis: to understand changes in reef-based livelihoods (including factors such as harvests. functions and relevance as perceived by locals. NOTE 1 For more information on SLA refer to http://www. availability. including. To understand how the institutional and policy context has changed and what impact this has had from the local perspective. Resource Mapping: to understand the biodiversity of coastal and reef areas. folk taxonomy and medicinal values • Social values. physical access. women’s involvement for different livelihood strategies or livelihood activity groups. Wealth ranking: to understand local perceptions of poverty and to use local poverty criteria to categorise households accordingly. a validation process also took place at the end of the research. conservation practices and beliefs) and to understand what factors have led to change.uk/imm or http://www. population. and what coping mechanisms have been employed. both within and between research tools and between participants. organisations and policies. Step 5: Individual household and key informant level analysis Semi-structured interviews were carried out in order to cross check and validate information from community and focus group levels. rituals. status of reef area. Occupational matrix: to understand risk. decision-making and vulnerability • Individual household coping strategies. Step 6: Validation Throughout the research process information was cross-checked.ex.Step 2: Community level analysis Once the villages have been selected. perceptions. Where possible. investment. The selection is undertaken from the lower ranking households and attempts to maximize the number of different poverty criteria represented. what impact these changes have had on the vulnerable groups.

Dasyatis Cydium spp.ANNEX 2 BIODIVERSITY OF LOCALLY EXPLOITED SPECIES IN THE THREE STUDY VILLAGES IN THE GULF OF MANNAR Type of resource Seaweeds Local name Marikolunthu pasi. Sphyraena Sardinella Gerres spp. Alva pasi. Panulirus sewelli Thenus Orientalis Panulirns Homarus Panulirns Ornatus Panulirns Versicolor Crustacea – lobsters Crustacea – prawns Molluscs Cowrie Ornamental shell Xanchous pyrum Doang doung Sea mammals 146 . Lethrinus spp. Albenner spp. Alectis spp. Pomadasys spp Gaterin spp. Pakoda or Karutham pasi Khorai pasi Mural Ooli/karaooli Choodai Udagam Seraiah Madanam Paarai Vilaimeen Thirukkai Seela Katla/parai Sura Naharai Kilinjan Valai Poola Kumula Tholan Muduvalli Panna Nethali Kattiklalai Kalvetti Vannathi Vali Vengarai Thondan Kuthippu Vaval Sehani Sivaram Savalai Saral Kutha Keeri Pachallai Pali meen Kilathi Kendai Matlish Mailmeen Scientific or common name Gelidiella spp. Scomberodes Shark Type of resource Crustacea – crabs Local name Pullika nandu Kolukattai nandu Yerumanakku Peikalnandu Kulzhinandu Oolakalnandu Silivainandu Singi Matta singi Thala singi Mani singi Ponvandu singi Rama singi Povali singi Kauthran singi Kilathi singi Kolta singi Kuduva singi Karai singi Vellai viral Patchai viral Karuvandu viral Chunambu viral Narai viral Kooni viral Chovi Muthu Chanku Avulia Scientific or common name Fish Scyllaserrata Portunees pelagicus Chaybdis spp. Gracilaria Turbinaria Sargassurn spp.

A Case Study from South Andaman Island Aparna Singh Harry Andrews 147 .

Dr Rauf Ali also made valuable inputs and the field assistants. A special thanks to Dr Ravi Sankaran and Mr Manish Chandi for useful discussions.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks are due to many people who contributed to this study. Mr Udai Singh for his support. led the study on South Andaman Island and committed considerable energies throughout. We thank them and hope that the discussions and knowledge they shared will benefit potential future work with ANET and external programmes concerned for the coral reef and sustainable development of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. All photos in Study 3 were supplied by James Wilson. Aparna Singh. Madras Crocodile Bank Trust/Centre for Herpetology. encouragement. Finally. Director. Philip Townsley and John Devavaram provided training and guidance for the fieldwork. who lent their sense of camaraderie essential to the successful completion of the project. and enduring patience. which was a key factor in the implementation of the project. information and editorial help in writing the report. Kusi Lda. who gave up their time and imparted their knowledge for the purposes of this study. 148 . Mr Harry V Andrews. and the Projects Coordinator Mrs R Rajyashri provided encouragement and support during the entire project. Andaman and Nicobar Environment Team. We are also grateful to the local communities from the three study villages.

NOMENCLATURE ACRONYMS ANET APL BPL GCRMN ICRMN NGO MGMNP RJMNP Andaman and Nicobar Environment Team Above the Poverty Line Below the Poverty Line Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network Indian Coral Reef Monitoring Network Non-Governmental Organisation Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park Rani Jhansi Marine National Park LOCAL TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS Dhonghis Locally made wooden boat. either mechanised or non-mechanised. 1–2 m in length and constructed of wood with a dugout hull and plank sides Rs Indian Rupee (exchange rate ~47Rs: 1US$) 149 .

economic and administrative characteristics of the area and local livelihood systems. entitled Reef Livelihoods. Section 5 outlines how reef-derived livelihoods have changed and discusses the causes of these changes and impacts on poor people’s livelihoods. Finally. who have been migrating to the islands from mainland India since the 1960s.BACKGROUND TO THE SOUTH ANDAMAN CASE STUDY The South Andaman Island case study was carried out in partnership with ANET and in consultation with the Indian Coral Reef Monitoring Network (ICRMN). The study highlights the nature of reef-based livelihoods amongst fishing communities.4). summarising the key aspects of the benefits of reef resources to the livelihoods of poor households and how these have responded to change. 150 . outlining key social. at the time of the study. focusing on three fishing communities. The latter was largely adhered to. concluding remarks are made in Section 6. ecological. but some key changes were made to the methodology to successfully secure improved data capture and cope with local constraints in data collection (as outlined in Annexes 1 and 2). the Andaman and Nicobar Islands were facing a major upheaval of immigration patterns through a Supreme Court Order (Box 1. The main work was undertaken over a period of 6 weeks beginning in June 2002. The first two sections of the report give a contextual overview of the study area and study communities. following a 3day training workshop in RLA methodology set out in IMM and SPEECH (2002). identifying what characteristics locally define poor households and estimating the extent of poverty existing in the communities. Section 1. However. Section 3 discusses the features of poverty in the study communities. It illustrates a situation where families have often migrated away from poverty with the hope of improving their livelihoods from the abundant natural resources available on the islands. It also represents a situation where the local economy has been highly subsidised by the government and where fisheries and more recently tourism (partly reef-based) have emerged as major growth poles. Benefits arising from the reef resources to all aspects of the livelihoods of the poorer members of the communities are described Section 4. which is curtailing all future illegal settlement opportunities and is currently affecting existing migrants. The following case study report provides a detailed overview of reef-based livelihoods on South Andaman Island. many of whose status is considered illegal.

These early fisherfolk settlers were provided with financial assistance for the sea fare (Rs 200 ~US$4). From 1955 to 1959. From 1942. 1. there are also considerable numbers of Karens from Myanmar (around 3000. roots. the majority of settlement took place in the Diglipur area on North Andaman Island and on South Andaman Island. 1. The other tribal groups consist of the Jarawa (300). who were settled in Hope Town.1 STUDY AREA CONTEXT T he Andaman and Nicobar Archipelago is a group of 306 islands and 206 rocky outcrops situated in the Bay of Bengal off the eastern coast of the Indian mainland. The nearest landmass to Great Nicobar Island is Sumatra. Middle and North Andaman Islands were opened up for settlement by refugees from erstwhile East Pakistan. Shompen (214). In the 1950s South. fishing implements (Rs 1000 ~US$21). concentrated in Webi and Karmatang in Mayabunder on Middle Andaman) and Sri Lankans (on Katchal Island in the Nicobars). The Indian Government also settled Ranchi tribals (from the Chhota Nagpur. was estimated to be 25 935 of which 96% were Nicobarese. 151 . From 1960 to 1981.1 Indigenous groups The tribes of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands belong to the Negroid and Mongoloid races. who are mainly employed in government jobs especially in the Forest Department.2 Settler population The settler population originate from mainland India. however. house construction (Rs 800 ~US$17). Under the settlement scheme there was a provision to settle 20 fishers a year with the purpose of increasing the fishing economy in the islands and providing fish to the island populace. 1. farmers were encouraged to settle in the Andamans by providing allotments of 5 acres of hilly land and 5 acres of paddy land to each family. They are now the subject of controversy with the indigenous Nicobaris over the legality of their settlement and a public interest litigation has been filed in court by the Tribal Council. They are hunter-gatherers living principally on honey. 300 Sri Lankan settlers were brought over. the government settled 92 fisher families. The first settlement of fisherfolk settlers consisted of five settler families from Kerala.1 SOCIAL SETTING The populace of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands is comprised of indigenous groups and settlers.1. In the 1980s. while the Myanmar coast is roughly 280 km north of Landfall Island. Subsequent fishers were brought in and settled as shown in Table 1. throughout the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. 145 km away. The islands lie in a crescent that stretches 740 km from north to south (13° 41’ N to 6° 45’ N) and 190 km from east to west (92° 12’ E to 93° 57’ E) from Cape Negrais of Myanmar to Banda Arc of Sumatra. Indonesia (Figure 1). Great Andamanese (32). The islands are divided into two groups: the Great Andaman group in the north. as of the 1998 census. The Karens were brought over by the British from Myanmar as early as 1925 to clear forests for settlements and for forestry operations. Sentinelese (100) and Onge (97). and a subsistence allowance (Rs 200 ~US$4 per month per family). and the Nicobar group in the south. wild boar and fish. The total tribal population. Bihar state). and their population has now increased to almost 1000. also known as Panighat. the northernmost island in the Great Andaman’s group.1.

amounting to over 20 000 people and almost double the number in 1995. South Andaman Prem Nagar and Aberdeen. Kerala. erstwhile East Bengal and Tamil Nadu. South Andaman Community origin Malayalee. South Andaman Panighat.Andhra Pradesh 1979 1980 1981 20 20 20+4 152 . (India) Andaman Sea Strait of Malacca Figure 1 Location of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. (India) THAILAND SRI LANKA Nicobar Is. In contrast. South Andaman Panighat. TABLE 1 DETAILS OF THE EARLY SETTLEMENT OF FISHERFOLK Year 1960 1960-61 1960-1961 1968-69 Number of families 5 9 5 9 Settlement area Panighat. In the last three decades there has been a spurt of immigration with fishers from various parts of India. The majority of the population (88%) live on the Andaman Islands.Andhra Pradesh Telugu. South Andaman Panighat.4 times the growth rate for India as a whole. Their immigration has been supported by subsidised MYANMAR INDIA Bay of Bengal Andaman Is.Andhra Pradesh Malayalee. South Andaman Panighat. Kerala Telugu. During the current study it was estimated that fisherfolk constitute approximately 6% of the total settler population.The present settler population numbers 356 265 as shown in Table 2.Andhra Pradesh Telugu. South Andaman Dandus point. including Andhra Pradesh. population growth in the last decade on the Nicobar Islands is significantly less than both the Andaman Islands and India as a whole (Table 2). West Bengal. with land easily encroached from forest areas and good potential for fishing. Kerala Telugu. which since 1991 has seen a decadal growth rate 1.Andhra Pradesh Telugu. New immigrants are attracted by the possibility of a better livelihood than on the mainland.

(2001) calculated the total reef area for the islands as 11 939 km2.34 26.1 Coral reefs The islands are fringed by some of the most spectacular and extensive coral reefs in the world.2. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands also support a substantial cover of evergreen rain forest and the third largest extent of mangrove cover in India. Sanitation also appears to be much better. but a large concentration of the fishing community are found in South.. Fifty-eight per cent of the population of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands is rural. which compare with estimates by Wafar (1986). Reef slopes rarely exceed 20 m depths levelling off to a sand base colonized by massive coral colonies. shallow gradual sloping fringing reefs on the windward shores. food and the opportunity to earn one of the highest average daily wages in India. Indicators of social development rank the Andaman and Nicobar Islands above India as a whole. Within these ecosystems there is a wealth of endemism and globally unique flora and fauna. From satellite imagery Turner et al. 2001). Muslims (8%) and Sikhs. Interestingly. 2001. sometimes with extensive flats.Vousden.7 72 Andaman and Nicobar Islands 73. Jains and others (each <1%). Fringing reefs consist of gradual reefs sloping seaward off moderate reef flats. Buddhists. as described by Turner et al. Kulkarni (2000) identified 115 species from the Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park (MGMNP: see Figure 5) in an area of 220 km2. making them the richest coral reefs in the Indian Ocean and an area of global significance (Turner et al. The Andaman reefs contain about 80% of the maximum coral diversity found anywhere in the world. Vousden (2001) and Turner et al. Philippines. ship fares. the most diverse reef areas identified by Turner et al. The reef structure around the Andaman Islands. followed by Christians (24%). 100% have drinking water supplies and there are 123 health clinics on the islands. The 1991 census indicates that the settler population on the islands is predominantly Hindu (68%). According to statistics1 from 2000.99 65. (2001).TABLE 2 ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS DEMOGRAPHIC DATA India Andaman Andamans Nicobars and Nicobar Islands 314 239 42 026 170 378 22 607 143 861 19 419 TABLE 3 A COMPARISON OF SELECTED SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS FOR ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS AND INDIA India Literacy rate1 Male Female Sanitation2 % households with a latrine 65. reef patches in bays. with higher literacy rates and lower infant mortality (Table 3). (2001). Central and Eastern Indonesia and Northern and Eastern Papua New Guinea. where population density is nearly 10 times less than India as a whole (Table 2). 153 .19 Infant mortality per 1000 1 285 354 954 741 660 293 74 955 205 706 1 1991 census 2 estimated from a sample of 1020 households.38 75.46 52. and steep sloping channel reefs in sheltered narrows. 324 34 1 2001 census provisional figures 2 1991 census. or the epicentre of marine biodiversity. Offshore reefs consist of an elevated plateau occasionally bordered by steep slopes into deeper water. is mainly offshore coral growth on exposed banks.06 Population 1 Total Male Female Decadal growth rate1 (1991–2001) Population distribution2 Urban Rural Population density2 (ps/km2) 1 027 015 247 356 265 531 277 078 192 985 495 738 169 163 280 21. The Andaman Islands are just northwest of the ‘Coral Triangle’.14 7. an area enclosing the 1. Middle and North Andaman Islands.96 54. 1.94 30. Fishers have spread out to many different islands.3 2 23. who reported the total reef area used in reef fisheries yield calculations for the Andaman Islands as 11 000 km2.28 23. 99% of inhabited villages have an electricity supply. (2001) have reported 197 species of coral within 58 genera. although data for the islands are from only a limited sample (Table 3).2 ECOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL SETTING The Andaman and Nicobar Archipelago is rich in both marine and terrestrial biodiversity and hosts probably the healthiest and least impacted expanses of coral reef within the Indian Ocean.02 78.

72 km2 (Balakrishnan. 1998. Middle and South Andaman Islands. 2000a.coincide with the main fishing areas for fishers from North. covering 1011. Dagar et al. 1996. North Andaman. Floristically. Temperatures range from a minimum of 18°C to a maximum of 34°C.3. including Andaman affinities to Indo-China and Nicobar affinities to Indo-Malayan (Das. each generally lasting for more than a week. 1991).2. 1. 1. The islands are seismic prone and have been discussed in detail by Ravi Kumar and Bhatia (1999).2. 1. 1969.62 km2 of which 2928.3 Topography In comparison to the flat plains of the Nicobar Islands. 2001.76 km2 is reserve forest and 2699.3 ECONOMIC SETTING Development emphasis has been and continues to be focused on terrestrial rather than marine resources. Das. During the wetter season the sea is rough due to the rains along with high wind speeds and currents. The Nicobar group is considered to be a continuation of Mentaweri island. with the main investment by government focusing on transport. 1996. the estimated number of Figure 2 Felled timber. The two most valuable growth options for recent developments are marine fisheries and tourism. including freshwater swamps and peat bogs (Andrews 1999a. being exposed to both northeast and southwest monsoons. Maximum rainfall is between May and December. with mean annual rainfall approximately 3500 mm. tourism and agriculture have had relatively low allocations. south west of Sumatra. South Andaman. Ripley and Beehier. 1969. The islands rely heavily on imports from the mainland. 1.1 Forestry and agriculture Forestry has been the primary focus of the economy since settlement began in the islands. The islands receive rainfall for much of the year (during 1999 it rained for a total of 209 days in Port Blair). 1999.5 Climate The climate is characterised by heavy rain. forest covers 5628. 2002). 1934). South Andaman Island. 1. Andrews and Sankaran. Weeks et al. In 1997. Andrews and Sankaran.4 Geology The origin of these islands is approximately dated as late Pliocene to Pleistocene (Chibber. including Landfall. making navigation very difficult. Rutland and Little Andaman have a mosaic of mangrove creeks and freshwater streams. located on North Andaman Island. as well as heavy subsidies from central government. Middle Andaman.. 2002). 1999). while fisheries.. The Andaman group of islands is an extension of the Rakhine (Arakan) Yomas range of Myanmar. 1989. energy and forestry (Figure 2). the topography of the Andaman Islands is hilly and undulating and the elevation ranges from sea level to 732 m.2 Forests Out of the total geographical area of the Andaman Islands (6408 km2). Based on 1995 statistics.2. Due to their long isolation these islands have evolved a significant diversity of flora and fauna with high levels of endemism. The Andaman Islands also support one of the world’s most extensive mangrove ecosystems. while January to April is comparatively dry. Saddle Peak. 1989. 1. Champion and Seth (1968) have classified these forests into 11 types and some of these areas are now known to be significant biodiversity hot spots. the revenue earned by forestry activities represented 50% of the total revenue for the islands. and is of volcanic origin with coral reefs contributing to the upheaval of banks (Rodolfo.2. 2000b). 154 . 1999b. Baratang. During the months of August and September there are two bouts of cyclonic spells. The main large islands.86 km2 is protected forest (ANI F. with the highest peak.

although little information is available on stock assessment or maximum sustainable yields. and are the focus of activities within the Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park (MGMNP). and fishing was carried out by a team of convicts with an aptitude for fishing. when some of the indigenous people were employed as fishers during Archibald Blair’s time in 1776–1779.2 Tourism Tourism was officially declared an industry in 1987 and expenditure on the tourism sector has increased from 1993. the Blue Revolution has gradually been evolving the fishery in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands towards largerscale export-driven commercial fishing. the jail authorities in Port Blair had the responsibility of supplying fish to the public. several private fishing companies attempted to start fishing operations in the islands. 3000 in private industry. with beach and reef-based tourism forming the highlight of activities within the MGMNP. net earnings from tourism have so far been negligible due to the heavy subsidies on food and transport. Even after the abolition of the penal settlement.workers in the forest industry totalled 19 800. Condemned or torn nets are also used in creeks. Hand-line fishing is also undertaken extensively targeting reef species and often in combination with net fishing. specifically to provide fish for the nascent settlement. where visitor numbers have grown from under 15 000 in 1991 to over 40 000 in 2001 (Singh et al. In addition. However. known locally as Dhonghis (Figure 3). The Andaman and Nicobar Island Administration established a Department of Fisheries in 1955. As of 2002. including 6000 within the Forest Department. followed by another in 1951. In 1950 the fisheries annual harvest was 44 tons. mangroves and small bays. which has grown to a current harvest exceeding 30 000 tons. Since 1988.. brought over by the administration to provide food for the growing settlement. ex-convicts continued their profession. the Fisheries Regulation Act dates back to 1932 and landing profile data exist from 1942 to 2002. 2002). Nonmechanised boats operate near-shore in harbours. 1999). Cast nets are used in shallow waters and for meeting subsistence needs. Tourists are both from overseas and the Indian mainland.3 Marine fisheries Indigenous groups have been fishing in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands since their arrival. The fishing craft and gear operated in the islands are mainly artisanal. 2002). Currently the Supreme Court Order has put a stop to all forestry operations. During this time. there are 18 larger craft owned by private companies for offshore fishing and trawling. Agriculturalists began settling in the islands in the 1940s. The biggest market and export houses are located on South Andaman and presently three species of reef fish. During British rule and the days of the penal settlement. However. The involvement of local fishing communities in the export business is a very recent trend.3. and the locally known Dollar fish (Blue spot grouper. 155 . a total of 2524 fishers were licensed to fish. the first opened during the 1940s. Of these fishing craft. 1. are particularly important commercially for export: the Napolean wrasse (family: Labridae). The land is more suited to plantation crops than paddy cultivation and over half of the agricultural area is dedicated to coconut and areca nut plantations (Andrews and Sankaran. Cephalopholis epinepheles.3. which began 5 years ago. With current increases in population it is likely that the agriculture carrying capacity has been surpassed (Sirur. bays. or the Red Snapper.2 Fisheries resources are considered to be plentiful. 800 in the Forest and Plantation Development Corporation and 10 000 in the furniture-making industry. while gills nets and anchor nets are deployed from boats and target schooling pelagic species. both these early operations were eventually disbanded. Prior to this fish was caught only for local consumption. 2002). 20% were non-mechanised country boats and 79% were mechanised country boats. creeks Figure 3 Tarring the bottom of a traditional mechanised craft or Dhonghi in Panighat. employing a total of 1983 fishing crafts (Andrews and Sankaran. 1. However. with an estimated potential of between 150 000 and 450 000 tons per annum. while the agricultural settlers of 1942 were already practising subsistence fishing. family: Lutjanidae). The history of fisheries development associated with the settlers dates back to the British Colonial era. Much of the tourism is focused on the natural resources.

the Andaman and Nicobar Islands became a Union Territory of the Republic of India. Middle Andaman Maya Bandar Anderson I. This post was later upgraded to Lieutenant Governor. Neill I. with the peak season corresponding to the period of low wind and rainfall from November to May during the north east monsoon. Andaman Islands Flat I. Sentinel I. North Sentinel) is against the law. Rutland I. Interview I. which is much better suited to the islands. However. N. Due to its strategic role. especially during the rough season. Diglipur Sound I. Fishing in and off tribal areas (Little Andaman. and areas near Sentinel Island and the Jarawa tribal areas to the west. During this time.and sheltered coves. and the fishing is undertaken on a daily basis. during the remaining months of June to October rainfall and winds are high and long distance trips and the use of nets is risky.4 ADMINISTRATIVE SETTING After independence in 1947. Outram I. S. Port Blair 1. The islands are considered as two revenue districts: the Andaman district in the north. Fishing activities are governed by seasonal weather patterns. Spike I. Archipelago South Andaman Havelock I. During this time the longer fishing trips can be made employing nets and lines. Sir William Peel I. Bay of Bengal Landfall I. For example. This was replaced by a decentralised Panchayat Raj. When weather permits. Little Andaman Key: Peak season Off season Figure 4 Peak and off-season fishing grounds exploited by fisherfolk from three study communities. Henry Lawrence I. lying across one of the world’s most important shipping lanes (the Straits of Malacca). Administrative staff are from mainland India and rotate their post on a 3-year basis. a three tier system consisting of Zilla Parishad at the first level headed by the Zilla president. As indicated in Figure 4. most decisions regarding the islands are taken in New Delhi. Brother I. Defence I. Table I. Sisters Is. John Lawrence I. Cinque Is. West I. Passage I. Jarawa. S. consequences not conducive to the island situation. 2002). This has had some N. Fishers from the three communities use the same fishing grounds. mechanised country boats may operate for longer trips of 3–5 days and fishers will often travel 10–12 hours with ice boxes to reach far off islands and deep reefs in order to obtain high-priced catches. however it is reported to be commonly carried out due to insufficient enforcement (Andrews and Sankaran. Smith I. The Panchayat Raj system is represented on the Island Council. Illegal fishing is also reportedly carried out in the Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park (MGMNP: Figure 5). followed by the Panchayat headed by Panchayat president. Sentinel I. and finally the village level Panchayat headed by the Pradhan or president. Passage I. areas off Little Andaman in the south. Long I. Brother I. cast nets are used extensively in shallow waters and hand-lines are used on nearby reef areas. A Chief Commissioner was appointed to the islands as the administrator. areas off Havelock and Neil Islands to the East. which consists of nominated members headed by the elected Member of Parliament (MP). An elected council of five counsellors looked after various portfolios. encompassing 306 islands and 156 . North Andaman N. N. the distant fishing grounds for the peak season are the offshore areas of Mayabunder and Diglipur in the north. Ritchies Baratang I. who represents the islands in the Home Ministry in Central Government and in the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament). The MP plays a key role in deciding the policies to be adopted for the islands. road transport has been given preference over sea transport. Reef I.

prohibiting extractive resource use.206 rocks and rocky outcrops of which 11 are inhabited. and the Nicobar district in the south. concerning a petition filed by various NGOs concerned for the forest ecosystem and sustainability of development on the islands. Over 100 protected areas. Eviction of post-1978 families from forest encroachments Issue of identity cards to all residents Complete phasing out of sand extraction over the next 5 years Restriction of any further tree felling to the barest minimum required to serve emergent public purposes and only after compensatory afforestation has been undertaken on the ground. BOX 1 AN OVERVIEW OF THE ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS SUPREME COURT ORDER In order to halt the forest degradation and ensure sustainable development on the islands the order has ruled the following measures: • • • • • • • • Complete cessation of commercial logging activities by March 2003 Prohibition of forest encroachment for agriculture or horticulture purposes Eviction of pre-1978 families remaining on encroached forest land. Those families who immigrated to the islands post-1978 and living on encroached land will be evicted from this land and will have to find alternative homes (most likely rented accommodation) on designated allotted land. South Andaman. tribal areas. Their concern arose due to the high level of immigration from mainland India together with unplanned development. The ruling is to be strictly enforced and identity cards are to be issued to settlers and their descendants in an attempt to check further immigration. sanctuaries and protected areas and all activities in these areas are strictly controlled. As part of the Supreme Court Order (Box 1) evictions are to be implemented in phases. and (2) Rani Jhansi Marine National Park (RJMNP). such as fishing. including two marine national parks: (1) Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park (MGMNP). first in forest areas and then in revenue areas. have been designated in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. the islands were undergoing the initial stages of a Supreme Court Order. national parks and sanctuaries. encompassing 24 islands of which 12 are inhabited. who have not yet shifted to allotted rehabilitation sites Eviction of pre-1978 families from land that is more than allotted entitlement. The Department of Environment and Forests is responsible for national parks (including marine parks). The districts are separated by the 10° channel and are further divided into subdivisions and Tehsils as outlined in Table 4. 157 . in the TABLE 4 ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS District Andamans Sub Division Mayabunder Tehsil Diglipur Mayabunder Rangat Ferrargunj Port Blair Little Andaman Car Nicobar Nancowrie Great Nicobar South Andamans Nicobars Car Nicobar Nancowrie Ritchie’s Archipelago (Figure 5). Coral reefs and marine resources located in unprotected areas come under the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Fisheries. At the time of the study. which has resulted in forest encroachment on a large scale and consequently widespread degradation of the forests.

Thirty-five households have land holdings where they undertake farming activities.1. Originally there were nine settler families. RJMNP Ritchies Archipelago South Andaman Port Blair MGMNP Panighat Junglighat Guptapara Figure 5 Location of study communities and marine national parks. The hills have been deforested for vegetable cultivation and plantations of banana. 2.2 COMMUNITY CONTEXT The village covers and area of 1. which have been rapidly deforested through encroachment of the settler community. undertaking cultivation. either directly or through hiring their boats to other fishers. Those families with considerable land holdings may supplement their income or food supply with fishing activities. which is carried out in the near-shore shallow waters mainly for subsistence purposes. limited sanitation facilities and a number of small shops. chickens and ducks. Fishing activities include cast netting. Women are not involved in any fishing activities. economic. More recent settlers with small and fragmented land holdings.1 GUPTAPARA 2.1 Geographical and social setting Guptapara village is located close to the north eastern border of Mahatma Ghandhi Marine National Park (MGMNP. rely on agricultural labour or fishing opportunities for their livelihoods. ecological and administrative context of the three study communities on South Andaman Island. The following section provides an overview of the geographical. A direct comparison of the three study villages is given in Table 5 (page 159). the original families were allotted 5 acres of hilly land. goats. as well as free rations for the first month. There is electricity in the village. Coral reefs adjacent to the marine national park. 5 acres of paddy land and given Rs 20 (~$0. The population is mostly Hindu and of Bengali origin. while low-lying land has been deforested for paddy cultivation. Figure 5).2 Ecological and economic setting The village was originally surrounded by forested hills to the east and mangroves along the coast. Bay of Bengal North Andaman Diglipur Maya Bandar Middle Andaman Andaman Islands Baratang I.2 km2 spreading from the mangroves along the shore. with a regular bus service to nearby Manglutan village. Coral reefs are found close to the village and within the adjacent MGMNP. working as agricultural labourers and looking after livestock. around Rutland Island and Chidiyatapu Island and nearby areas can be accessed in non-mechanised country boats and are closer to Guptapara as compared to other study communities. A road runs through the village. Nearby reefs have become degraded over the past 20 years due to fishing pressures and sedimentation. 4 km away. as 158 . or no land at all. social. including paddy and vegetable cultivation. The village was cleared to make an agriculture settlement in the coastal area in the early 1950s and was known originally as ‘Hathidera’ or Elephant Camp. Women are involved in agricultural activities. Mangrove areas have also been depleted through felling for construction timber and firewood. but according to the 1991 census. coconut and arecanuts (beetle nuts). all other services are located in Manglutan (Table 6). 2. water supplies. the community numbers 743 people.1. such as cows.4) per month. to the hilly slopes.

Settlement began 1960s Population: 3525 No.05 Nonmechanised country boats: 21% Mechanised country boats: 50% Cast nets: 0% Hand lines: 67% Boat nets: 73% • • • • • • Seasonal weather patterns (fishing) Net damage or loss Fishing occupational hazards Market uncertainty Alcoholism and gambling Supreme Court Order Average household size: 6. of households: 500 (174) Allotted land: 32% Purchased land: 3% Encroached land: 12% Own house: 68% Rented house: 18% Fishing Fish vending Private business Government jobs 67% n/a 27% Full time fishing Part time fishing Nonfishing 79% n/a 6% Junglighat Marine resources: nearby and distant reefs Terrestrial resources: limited mangrove area for firewood Hindu is predominant religion Telugu origin from coastal districts of Andhra Pradesh Settlement began 1976 Population: 12 120 No of households: 2000 (1000) Allotted land: 42% Purchased land: 26% Encroached land: 0% Own house: 58% Rented house: 45% Fishing Fish vending Private business Government jobs Full time fishing Part time fishing Nonfishing 38% 38% 23% Social composition and settler origins Demography1 Current settler status (% households and land/house ownership types)2 Population: 421 No of households: 78 (142) Allotted land: 24% Purchased land: 18% Encroached land: 13% Own house: 91% Rented house: 2% Vegetable cultivation Paddy cultivation Livestock Fishing Fish vending Full-time fishing Part-time fishing Non-fishing Livelihood opportunities Livelihood strategies (% households) Fishery operations (% of occurrence) Cast nets: 5% Cast nets and hand-lines: 2% Hand-lines only: 65% Boat nets only: 0% Boat nets and hand-lines: 27% Principle occupation Fishing Fish vending Vegetable cultivation Paddy cultivation Livestock M H H H H H F   H  H Cast nets: occasional Cast nets and hand-lines: 0% Hand-lines: 26% Boat nets: 32% Boat nets and hand-lines: 41% Principle occupation Fishing Fish vending Private business Government jobs M H H H H F  H H H Cast nets: 0% Cast nets and hand-ines: 0% Hand-lines: 3% Boat nets: 68% Boat nets and hand-lines: 29% Principle occupation Fishing Fish vending Private business Government jobs M H H H H F  H H H Gender roles Key: M/F male/female  Involved H Not involved  No information Household human assets3 Average household size: 5.06 Nonmechanised country boats: 26% Mechanised country boats: 39% Cast nets: 0% Hand lines: 32% Boat nets: 97% • Seasonal weather patterns (fishing) • Net damage or loss • Fishing occupational hazards • Alcoholism and gambling • Supreme Court Order Household productive assets Nonmechanised country boats: 2% Mechanised country boats: 20% Cast nets: 7% Hand lines: 94% Boat nets: 27% Vulnerabilities and risks • Seasonal weather patterns (fishing and agriculture) • Net damage or loss • Fishing occupational hazards • Market uncertainty • Alcoholism and gambling • Supreme Court Order 159 . then Telugu origin from Andhra Pradesh.TABLE 5 VILLAGE COMPARISON TABLE Guptapara Natural resource access Marine resources: nearby and distant reefs Terrestrial resources: paddy cultivation in low lying land and vegetable cultivation on hill encroachments Hindu is predominant religion Bengali origin from West Bengal Settlement began 1950-1952 Panighat Marine resources: nearby and distant reefs Terrestrial resources: forest in buffer zone of national park and limited mangrove area for firewood Hindu is predominant religion Initially Malayalee origin from Kerala.4 Average household size: 7.

Some school leavers often end up engaging in illegal activities.TABLE 5 (CONTINUED) Guptapara Panighat Junglighat Surmai Co-operative Society present Fisheries Department in Port 3 km away Public Works Department nearby • Surmai Co-operative Society present • Self-help groups located in the • • Nearest Fisheries Department office village in Port Blair • Nearest Fisheries Department • • Public Works Department site office office in Port Blair. government wells. 2 As per 1991 census. diesel and loans. 1 Number of households: figure underlined is the estimate from social mapping and participant estimates in the current study. private stores and shops for groceries and vegetables present in the village • No bank in village Religion Markets and supplies Finance 160 . figure in brackets is estimate as per 1991 census. such as poaching. 3 High occurrence of encroached land and rented houses and low occurrence of allotted land and house ownership indicates settlers of recent origin and vice versa. ice. data not available. Fish traders. A few local men also purchase fish. books and meals are provided • A government bus service connects Guptapara with the middle school • Most children leave school at 13 years old (8th grade) as lacking in inclination and attitude to education. agriculture tanks. sand mining. discrepancies between revenue and forest areas. 4 km away Water • A large stream flows through Guptapara village • Public water pipes. which provide opportunities for fishing labour to an estimated 58% of households. well as hand-line and net fishing from boats. forests and mangroves are used for personal ablutions • One temple in the village and a holy Peepul tree (holy Ficus tree) where the villagers worship • Fair price shop. During the TABLE 6 SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN GUPTAPARA Sector Education Infrastructure • Primary school and middle school 2 km away • High school in Manglutan 4 km away Comment • Education is free and uniforms. Differences may be due to a number of factors. which they sell on cycles for local consumption. ponds also supply water Sanitation • Limited sanitation facilities are available • Fields. For advanced treatments patients go the general hospital in Port Blair 16 km away • Public water supply once in 2 days • Women have to fetch water from the public pipes and wells which are located in only a few places • Water demand is great in the summer • Agriculture tanks are also used for domestic purposes by owners • 9% of households with low cost latrines • The domestic sewage flows around the houses along with the drainage posing a health risk and providing a breeding ground for mosquitoes • Predominant religion is Hinduism • Market with fair price shop and other stores close by • Cooperative and state bank 4 km away Health • Primary health centre in Manglutan. undefined village boundaries. including immigration. they also supply fishers with bait. who have been operating in the village for 30 years. Boats are mainly mechanised country boats. purchase the majority of the catch and transport it on ice to local and export markets in Port Blair. 40 km away Blair located in the village by road • • Public Works Department nearby Local institutions n/a. either exclusively (65% of operations) or combined with net fishing (27% of opera- tions). Hand-line fishing is the focus of fishing activities. shell and sea cucumber collection • Provides basic health facilities to treat common ailments plus infant care and vaccinations.

Port Blair town is located across the bay and is accessed by hourly ferries or by a 40 km journey overland by road. constituting 41% of fishing operations. A Public Works Department site office is located in the village. however. the co-operative society is now widely perceived as a defunct institution. However. either at nearby fishing grounds and reefs. but did not materialise. However. These non-fishing livelihoods are undertaken by both men and women. Lutjanidea family). which they would opportunistically pick up during fishing trips or from the reefs nearby and sell to traders. The nearest Fisheries Department office is in Port Blair. the dollar fish. a few villagers still occasionally employ cast nets near the reef for subsistence needs. Otherwise. livelihood opportunities have remained limited mainly to fishery-based options.1. Middlemen and moneylenders are key people in the community. with non-fishing options restricted to private businesses. or red snapper.2 PANIGHAT 2. this stopped functioning after a ban 161 . The coral reef area adjacent to Panighat and the North Bay area has been badly degraded by dynamite fishing over the last decade and currently very little of the reef remains. with women’s involvement limited to fish vending and some fish drying in the dry season.4 km2 along the steep stony slopes of Mount Harriet.2. as outlined in Table 7. such as small shops. The Surmai Co-operative Society is also present. Coastal mangroves have also been depleted through felling for house construction and firewood. The first batch of settlers consisted of five families from Kerala. A slipway was sanctioned by the government 5 years ago. has also contributed to a decline in immigration to this area. The village covers an area of 3. except for a small patch near the Panighat wharf. with mechanised boats providing fishing labour opportunities to an estimated 29% of households. Fishing is undertaken on non-mechanised and mechanised country boats. concentrating only on hand-lines for reef fish of export value (e. The lack of space. but also in supplying money and loans. non-mechanised boats are frequently used for net fishing. 2. which extends into the official buffer zone of Mount Harriet National Park. which is responsible for maintaining roads and water supplies. Currently the estimated population is 3525 distributed among 500 households. who settled from 1980 to 1981 and were allotted 400 m2 of land for a house and an allowance of Rs 4000 (~$85). due to the steep slopes of Mount Harriet and the national park. ice. There is electricity and water supplies to the community. 2. this was followed by 64 Telugu families from Andhra Pradesh. A quarter of all fishing from Panighat is exclusively hand-line fishing for reef fish. The society helps people involved in fishing-related activities by providing loans and selling gear at subsidised rates. where a retaining wall is also built and five footpaths and steps lead up from the shore into the village.peak fishing season fish traders organise temporary seasonal migrations of between 60–70 fishers from West Bengal to work as fishing labour. The fishing community here is one of the oldest nonindigenous fishing settlements in the Andaman Islands dating back to 1960. Some of the men in Guptapara are also involved in sand mining operations. not only in the sale of fish and provision of fishing supplies.3 Administrative setting Guptapara village comes under the jurisdiction of Guptapara Panchayat in the Ferrargunj Tehsil of South Andamans subdivision. comprised of 13 members from outside Guptapara and a president from Junglighat. despite playing an important role in the past. Due to the local topography and proximity to Mount Harriet National Park. Cephalopholis epinepheles. where a number of services are provided. where villagers collect fuel wood. such as ice and bait.2. 16 km away.2). in addition to lack of access to transport and fishery infrastructure. dominated by a few influential members. The main road runs along the shoreline.1 Geographical and social setting Panighat is situated in North Bay along the south eastern slopes of Mount Harriet National Park to the north of Port Blair (Figure 5).g. although Fisheries Officers will make periodic visits to the fish landing centre to collect landing statistics.2. The nearest market and shops are located at Bambooflat 4 km away from Panighat. diesel supplies and markets (Section 2. or in combination with mechanized boats at distant fishing grounds and reefs where both net and hand-line fishing are undertaken. Immigration of fisherfolk from the mainland to this site mainly from Andhra Pradesh continued until recently when the Administration increased ship fares causing a decline in immigration. but no sanitation facilities.2 Ecological and economic setting The land around Panighat is hilly and stony and was once surrounded by forest. Fish harvesting is only undertaken by men. The forest area has now been deforested through encroachment. Panighat is primarily a fishing community and was established as such through the first batch of government-led fisheries settlements in 1960. A processing plant was set up at Panighat for processing the liver of dog sharks. Before the ban on shell collection 2 years ago. most households were also involved in shell collection. such as gear. or government jobs. 2.

1 Geographical and social setting Junglighat is located in the heart of Port Blair town to the south of Junglighat wharf. and some women take fish to sell in Port Blair. Locally fish is sold in the small market at Bambooflat. covering an area of less that 0. but fisherfolk gradually encroached on the land and after occupying it for 35 years. 4 km away • Nearest supply of diesel and fishing gear is Port Blair • Cooperative and state bank in Bambooflat. and their objective is to obtain subsidies and loans from the government to provide self-employment and alleviation of poverty in rural areas.TABLE 7 SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN PANIGHAT Sector Education Infrastructure • Primary school in Chunabhatta 1 km away • Middle and high school 4 km away • Public health centre located in Bambooflat 4 km away • Government dispensary located at Chunabhatta. promoted through the Ministry of Rural Development. Self help groups are found in Panighat. 4 km away Health Water Sanitation Religion Markets/supplies Finance • No bank in Panighat on shark fishing in October 2001. Fishers therefore spend considerable time in procuring materials from Port Blair and must also transport fish catches for export to traders in Port Blair.3 Administrative setting The village comes under the jurisdiction of Panighat Panchayat in the Ferrargunj Tehsil of the South Andamans Sub Division. (Figures 5 and 6). it is also taken house to house by cycle in Bambooflat. Mannarghat and Wright Myo. Originally four families were 2.5 km2 Figure 6 The waters edge of Junglighat community. Later most of the area was held by the armed forces.2. fishmarket and other shops in Bambooflat. as well as non-fishing households. There is no cold storage accessible to the village. Their membership includes fishing. The community consists of Telugu people from the coastal districts of Andhra Pradesh. 2. vegetable shops.3. legally regularised and registered the land in their names. For advanced treatment patients are referred to Port Blair general hospital 40 km away by road • There is high demand on the water supply and water scarcity can be a problem • The domestic sewage flows around the houses along with the drainage posing a health risk and providing a breeding ground for mosquitoes • Most of the fishers are Hindus and Telugu origin from Andhra Pradesh • Fair price shops. The site was named originally after the ‘Andaman Homes’ created during the British pioneer days to ‘civilise’ the Great Andamanese. nearby Muslim communities. Interaction with the Fisheries Department is limited. All support services for fishing are located in Port Blair and no middlemen or fish traders service the village with fishing materials. so when the catch is too great the price is reduced and sold locally. 1 km away • Public water taps and tanks • Two water tanks are shared with the adjacent Indian Oil Gas Plant • No sanitation facilities • Forest areas are used for ablutions • Two temples • No shops in Panighat Comment • The teachers come from Port Blair town • Educational level of children is limited as they tend to leave in middle or high school • Public health care has inpatient facilities. with the nearest office in Port Blair.3 JUNGLIGHAT 2. 162 . • Only basic treatment is available.

with an estimated 2000 households and population of 12 120. Most of the households in Junglighat are of recent immigrants and original settlers are now few. Fishery operations are mainly net fishing (68% of operations). Within Junglighat there are numerous large and small shops and markets. Occasionally men will also undertake fish vending.settled in Junglighat by the Administration. Loss of mangrove cover has also exposed the formerly protected boat anchorage. some private house connections and wells constructed during Japanese occupation • Public toilets available in one part of Junglighat • Remaining area has no toilets and people use shore area for ablutions. although predominantly they are involved in fish-harvesting activities. from Srikakulam district. Livelihoods in Junglighat are primarily fishing-based. and to seek better livelihoods in the islands. The constant influx of migrants to Junglighat has made it the most densely populated area of Port Blair. Both men and women undertake non-fishing livelihood options. Immigration has continued ever since. Depletion of mangrove cover and nearby coral reef areas has resulted in severe coastal erosion and the municipality has been forced to build a retaining wall to prevent further erosion. with most people arriving in 1976. firewood collection and pollution from rubbish and sewage disposal. level of sanitation is generally poor and there are frequent cases of diarrhoea and dysentery Health • Junglighat public health centre 1 km away • Dairy farm public health centre 1 km away • Public water taps. with mechanised boats providing fishing labour opportunities to an estimated 35% of households. they were provided with plots of land and were to start commercial fishing.3. Electricity and water are supplied. middle and high school 1 km away Comment • Primary school is within Janglighat • All schools can be reached by walking • It is estimated that more than 70% of the children leave at middle school level and start working in fisheries • The public health centres provides all the basic medical care and free treatment • The general hospital in Port Blair is 2 km away • The water supply is available every day • Demand for water at the public taps is high and there is a daily rush to obtain water • Despite limited public toilets in part of the community. Andhra Pradesh. Fishers were attracted to the Junglighat area because of its location in the heart of Port Blair town and proximity to facilities and services. This includes good access to transport. fish market and shopping area within 1 km • United Bank in Junglighat Water Sanitation Religion Markets/supplies • Hindus • Other shops and markets in Port Blair town Finance • Other banks in Port Blair town 163 . such as a harbour. or house to house throughout Port Blair independent from middlemen. increasing the risk to boats from storms and heavy weather. enabling the community to market their fish in more distant towns. These are undertaken on non-mechanised and mechanised country boats. • Rubbish is disposed around houses and on shore line • Four temples • Fair price shops in Junglighat • Vegetable market. in the nearby market. 2. A jetty for landing boats was proposed and sanctioned. The proximity of Junglighat to the centre of Port Blair provides good access to all the urban facilities available in Port Blair as outlined in Table 8. but has not yet materialised. but there are only limited sanitation facilities.2 Ecological and economic setting Nearby coral reefs and mangroves have been severely degraded through heavy fishing pressure. In the fishery women are only involved in fish vending. markets and cold storage. which they undertake at the landing site. TABLE 8 SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN JUNGLIGHAT Sector Education Infrastructure • Primary. Many families have migrated to escape from the impacts of drought and famine. although the proximity to Port Blair provides employment opportunities in government jobs and in small private enterprises associated with development activities in the town.

which affect both fishing and agricultural activities. high wind speeds. 2. particularly in households where the women have little control over expenditure and saving. This tendency exposes many households to further associated uncertainties and risks. or deeper into poverty. responsible for maintaining roads and water supplies. as longer and farther trips incur too high a risk. 2. For the Guptapara community. many of which have been discussed in the previous sections and which are summarized below: 164 . in most cases rented from others. During the long rainy periods. meaning a total loss in terms of investment in diesel. For those immigrants who arrived post-1978. During the low fishing season. with many families having no alternative but to return to mainland India. and some community members are political party workers. As described in Section 1. For example. is nearby.followed by combined net and hand-line fishing (29% of operations). Currently. There are indications that this action has significantly affected some households and may drive other families into. with few alternative irrigation facilities available. where they access better fishing grounds and avoid local high winds during the peak fishing season between November and May.4. If the local market is flooded with a certain variety of fish. The president of the Surmai Co-operative Society lives in Junglighat. The inherent uncertainties and irregularity of fishing livelihoods as described above is frequently seen to result in alcoholism and gambling addictions amongst the fishers of all three communities. Agriculture in Guptapara is mainly rain fed. Such risks are considerably less in Junglighat. As well as dangers at sea associated with bad weather. In addition to the seasonal and weather-related vulnerabilities associated with fisheries-based livelihoods. then fish vendors in Junglighat frequently use the nearby cold storage facilities to store fish until the market recovers. Junglighat community falls under wards 7 and 8 and community members are elected to the wards through municipal elections. currents and turbulent waters associated with the south west monsoon from June to October make it difficult for the fishers to go out to sea. or destroyed through collisions with passenger and cargo vessels of inter-island and mainland shipping routes. During this time they are restricted to fishing around nearby islands and reefs and in sheltered areas on a daily basis. ice and bait. 2. the constant exposure to the wet and cold incurs health risks and fevers are common during the bad weather of the south west monsoon. It is expected that with growing demand the price of renting or purchasing allotted land will increase significantly. which may drift off in strong currents. there are also additional risks associated with the agricultural activities occurring there together with fishing activities. a delay or cancellation of the ice truck operated by the fish trader results in additional and unplanned expenditure for the fishers to transport their fish to the cold storage in Port Blair. agricultural activities are vulnerable to the uncertainties of weather. It is also common for non-mechanised boats to fish locally in the nearby bay and entrance to the harbour selling the catch daily to the market in Junglighat. Even in the peak season for fishing during the north east monsoon from November to May fishers risk occasionally being caught in bad weather and may have to delay their trip and anchor in nearby islands. The fishers from Junglighat migrate seasonally with their boats to camps on the west coast of South Andaman Island.5 EXTERNAL FACTORS CONTROLLING LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES For the coastal fishing communities of South Andaman Island there are a number of factors which influence the nature of their livelihood opportunities. mainly to North Wandoor and Loha Barrack. get caught on rocky beds or coral reefs. there are no immediate plans for compensation and they will have to find alternative housing on allotted land. the society’s activities are limited. Middlemen and moneylenders run and control the financial institutions for poorer households. in the rainy months of June to October. The Fisheries Department is only 3 km away and is used extensively by the community for the cold storage facilities located there. there are also risks of losing nets. A Public Works Department. in Panighat there have been instances when a good catch has had to be thrown back into the sea for lack of marketing and storage facilities.3. In Guptapara.4 VULNERABILITIES The main vulnerabilities and risks faced by the three communities are linked to the seasonal patterns of weather.3 Administrative setting Junglighat is located within the Port Blair municipal limits and is governed by the municipal board. Thus. however. recent immigrants from all communities have been evicted from encroached land as a result of the Supreme Court Order. which dictate the success of cultivation and harvest. where there is an accessible cold storage facility and diverse market outlets. creeks on Baratang Island (6 hours away) are used for prawn fishing. all those households occupying encroached land or non-allotted land will be evicted. Uncertainties in markets for perishable fish products also expose communities to vulnerabilities. which is comprised of various wards. The high population density here is a substantial vote-bank for politicians.

It takes time for immigrant families to build up networks and support systems. i.4. Seasonality: The underlying pattern of weather and its extremes is important in determining the type of fishing undertaken. fishing gear and diesel supplies and market outlets impact fishing activities and the potential for fishery development. Guptapara has best access to healthy and productive resources. which fishing grounds are exploited and what gear is used. Distance to services and markets: The availability of transport.e. with early immigrants obtaining better outcomes than those recent immigrants. cold storage facilities. such that fishers from Junglighat migrate there seasonally in order to access the resources. as described in Section 2. the availability of terrestrial resources. 165 . During the bad weather season fisheries activities are concentrated on local marine resources and their status and availability obviously impacts the success of fishing during this period. Of the three communities involved in the study. Overriding all these factors at present is the potential impact of the Supreme Court Order. It also takes time to build up the physical resources which have been left behind on the mainland. Such factors restrict the fisheries activities in Guptapara and in particular in Panighat. Local resource status and availability: This includes both marine and terrestrial resources.Settler status: The length of time which has elapsed since immigration to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands largely determines a household’s livelihood outcome. in terms of suitable land for house-building. limits potential for future growth in this community and has deterred immigration. which for recent settlers may well mean returning to mainland India and rebuilding lives left behind. In Panighat. recent immigrants cannot access subsidies and loans from the Fisheries Department and it is more difficult to obtain credit or loans from middlemen and traders without an established relationship of trust.

In Panighat and Guptapara BPL families make up the largest category. This picture partially agrees with a study undertaken by the Fisheries Department. while Junglighat is considered under the urban category. rice and sugar at subsidised rates). Table 10 shows the distribution of BPL and APL families according to the current study. with greater levels of ‘poor’ households in Guptapara and a larger number of ‘better off ’ households in Junglighat. In addition. classification of families considered Below the Poverty Line (BPL) for rural or district areas. To gain a better understanding of what the poverty categories summarised in Table 11 represent. the following sections discuss the different features defining poverty for each community. Junglighat and Guptapara fishers have opportunities for higher monthly incomes due to their links to export markets and mechanisation (Mustafa. indicating that in all three communities a significant proportion of families have BPL status. 2002). which indicated that among the nontribal migrant fishers in the Andamans district. ‘poor’ households in Guptapara were generally those of recent immigrants living on encroached land or on other people’s land. So far 5569 BPL families have been classified under this scheme for rural areas of the Andaman district. However.3 POOR STAKEHOLDERS and therefore are not classified under this scheme. Land plots of ‘poor’ households TABLE 11 PROPORTIONS OF HOUSEHOLDS DISTRIBUTED AMONG THREE WEALTH CATEGORIES Wealth ranking category Poor Less well off Better off Guptapara 71 21 7 Panighat 61 11 28 Junglighat 25 34 42 TABLE 9 RURAL AND URBAN BPL CLASSIFICATIONS Per capita monthly expenditure (Rs) Rural Urban 269.2 GUPTAPARA As summarised in Table 12.04 TABLE 12 CHARACTERISTICS OF POVERTY IN GUPTAPARA Factors contributing towards household poverty • Large family • Small land plots on encroached or leased land • High expenses on alcohol Factors alleviating household poverty • • • • • Small family Settler status Owning land Hard working Co-operation amongst family members • High income • Savings • Women involved in finances TABLE 10 PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH BPL AND APL CLASSIFICATIONS IN THREE STUDY COMMUNITIES BPL Guptapara Panighat Junglighat 53 76 32 APL 33 6 48 Households without BPL/APL status 15 18 20 166 .07 381. there are discrepancies in the BPL/APL status given to households. this shows similarities with the BPL/APL classification (Table 10). BPL status may be declared simply to obtain the ration cards available with BPL status (which provide kerosene. According to the present criteria. Poverty census work began in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in 1997 and is still in progress. Recent immigrants require a certain period of domiciliation and proof of residence to obtain a ration card 3. and it is reported that the ration cards may be procured illegally without the required domiciliation. Among the three study communities. The distribution of poverty by locally defined poverty criteria (Table 11) enhances the picture of poverty in the three communities. while in Junglighat the larger category is APL households.1 OVERVIEW OF POVERTY Poverty enumeration is undertaken on a 5-year basis unlike the population census. Overall. 3. Guptapara and Panighat fall into the rural classification. which takes place every 10 years. is as described in Table 9.

Overall. Generally these households had multiple sources of income. The ‘better off ’ households in Panighat were also those with settler status. and had established good financial and physical assets.4 JUNGLIGHAT In Junglighat (Table 14) the ‘poor’ households were again those without financial or physical assets and generally relied on boat labour as a source of income. ‘poor’ households are generally those who had recently arrived with little or no financial and physical assets and who generally engage in fishing labour opportunities.3 PANIGHAT In Panighat (Table 13) the ‘poor’ households were similarly considered to be those living on other people’s property (renting rooms in other’s houses) and commonly relied on boat labour as a source of income. Other common features contributing to poverty were alcoholism. These households also lacked productive assets such as nets or lines and were forced to take loans. A number of the ‘better off ’ households were also involved in fish and prawn trading as middlemen. who owned land and had higher incomes. 3. ‘Poor’ households were also frequently characterised by problems of alcoholism and large family sizes. Interestingly. nonfishing sources. which dictates financial and physical asset ownership. The ‘better off ’ households in Guptapara were generally considered to be those with settler status. poverty was characterised primarily by the settler status of households. as well as nonfishing sources associated with opportunities in Port Bair. as well as boats and fishing gear. their own house and even in some cases land and a house on the mainland. owning land. Certain households were also recognised as ‘poor’ in Panighat as a result of losing fishing nets. from fishing and 3. as well as the type of livelihood opportunities available. the involvement of women in financial decision-making (in making investments and procuring assets). Certain households were also recognised as ‘poor’ in Junglighat as a result of losing fishing nets. As in Guptapara ‘poor’ households in Junglighat were often encountered as having problems of alcoholism.were commonly small and fragmented and households frequently relied on boat labour as a source of income. Thus. TABLE 13 CHARACTERISTICS OF POVERTY IN PANIGHAT Factors contributing towards household poverty • • • • Rented rooms No nets or lines Loans Loss of nets Factors alleviating household poverty • • • • • • • • • Small family Settler status Allotted land Own house Land and house on mainland Own multiple boats and nets Government or private jobs Women vending Many earning members in household • Income from room rental • Bank accounts and invested money • Engage in money lending TABLE 14 CHARACTERISTICS OF POVERTY IN JUNGLIGHAT Factors contributing towards household poverty • • • • • Rented house No nets or boats Loans High expenditure on alcohol Loss of nets Factors alleviating household poverty • • • • • • • • • • • • Own house Settler status Purchased land Own multiple boats and nets Own long lines Government or private jobs Rental income More than one male earner Women vendors Gold savings Invested money Well educated 167 . Most households had multiple sources of income from fishing. indebtedness and loss of fishing nets. was recognised as an important feature of ‘better off ’ households. ‘Better off ’ households in Junglighat were similarly characterised by having settler status. with allotted land.

67 and 32% of operations. environmental and policy context in which the communities exist. (P) All All 168 . financial.2). These reefrelated resources contribute to the building blocks of the livelihoods of the communities and ultimately to the livelihood outcomes that they aspire to.5). to two-thirds in Panighat and a third of all operations in Junglighat (94. 4. to respond to the structures and processes that influence them and to cope with the background context of indirect influencing factors in which they operate.1. These direct influencing structures and processes emanate from government.1 Natural resources In the Andaman Islands the coral reefs are a major component of the fishery resource and are targeted directly with hand-line fishing for a diversity of reef species (Figure 7). human and social resources of poor households in the three study communities is described in following sections (4. the private sector and society. ranging from the almost all in Guptapara. physical. social and human.1. respectively). physical.1– 4. Some of these benefits arise because reefs can contribute to the resources that the communities have access to. and to coping with the risks and vulnerabilities associated with indirect influencing factors (Section 4. They in turn interact with the longer-term and periodically catastrophic background changes that affect the social. These outcome changes are best defined and measured by the communities themselves if they are to 4. The following sections describe the many different streams of benefits to the livelihoods of the ‘poor’ households or stakeholders identified in the three study communities. either undertaken exclusively or combined with net fishing.1 RESOURCES The contribution of coral reefs to the natural. constitutes a significant proportion of the fishing operations in the three study communities. We refer to these as the indirect influencing factors.4 REEF LIVELIHOODS meaningfully represent positive improvements in their lives.1). These resources can be grouped under five headings: natural. to enhancing interactions with direct influencing factors (Section 4. the reef can enhance the way the communities interact with the structures and processes that directly influence the way they access and use their resources.1.3). Coral reefs have the potential to provide a stream of benefits to the poor in the three coastal communities of South Andaman Island. The reef also has the potential to directly contribute to the livelihood strategies that the communities adopt to use the resources they can access. financial. The services that the reef provides to the poor ultimately benefits them by contributing to positive changes in the outcomes of their livelihoods. economic. A summary of these benefits is provided in Table 15 below. Hand-line fishing. The vast expanse of islands TABLE 15 A SUMMARY OF REEF BENEFITS TO HOUSEHOLD RESOURCES Resources Natural Benefits from the reef Diverse and productive resource Diversity of reef fish Larger pelagic fish feeding around reef edge Opportunities for fishing without conflict between users Protects adjacent near-shore ecosystems Mangroves provide habitat to juvenile reef fish Mangroves provide safe anchorage and source of firewood Physical barrier Protects coastal land from erosion Promotes land extension in some areas Provides calm waters for cast netting Prevents large scale commercial fishing operations Navigation Reef used as marker to locate fishing grounds Community1 All All All All All Physical All All G. focusing on reef benefits to household resources (Section 4. Coral reefs are highly productive ecosystems supporting high levels of diversity and biomass. In addition.

P All All All All Social All All 1 G. which is commonly conducted in channels running between or alongside reef areas. Many juvenile reef fish use the mangrove as a nursery. P. ranging from almost all in Junglighat. represent a resource that so far has been exploited without conflicts for access between users. Guptapara.TABLE 15 Resources Financial (CONTINUED) Benefits from the reef Cash income Sales of a diversity of reef and pelagic fish species Wages from boat labour Fish for exchange To gain favours from officials or pay tuitions fees Markets Local market opportunities Export market opportunities Low investments Reef fishing gear (hand-lines) inexpensive and easily obtained Reefs closer than pelagic fishing grounds so reduce expense (time/fuel) to access Food and protein source Considered ‘free’ food source Excess catch and small fish for elderly. sick. interlinked by nutrient. Panighat. 169 . Junglighat and reefs found in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands combined with the productivity of the reef ecosystem itself. in particular the pelagic net fishery. Net fishing. either undertaken exclusively or combined with hand-line fishing. 73 and 27% of operations. constitutes a major proportion of fishing activities in the three communities. J. respectively). including mangroves. The coral reefs form an integral part of the wider ocean and coastal ecosystem. seagrass beds and the open sea. while certain adult reef fish use the seagrass beds as a feeding area. J. sediment and energy flows. widows Skills and knowledge In operation and maintenance of fishing gear and boat Of fish species and those valuable species for export Safety Near-by reefs less hazardous to reach compared to distant fishing sites Hand-lines less hazardous than nets Collaborative extraction Social network associated with boat crews Rituals Sprinkling water over boats to ensure safety and luck in catch Community1 All All All All G. It is for this very reason that this as yet ‘untapped resource’ has attracted so many immigrant fisherfolk from mainland India. Coral reefs also indirectly support and interact with other parts of the fishery. (P) All All Human All J. In Figure 7 Fish catch at Panighat. to nearly three-quarters in Panighat and about a third of operations in Guptapara (97.

unlike the alternative of nets which can often only be acquired with loans or credit. Fish products. In the remote islands of the Andamans. there are multiple local market outlets. In Guptapara and to a marginal extent in Panighat. reefs are used for navigation as a matter of course during all fishing trips and activities at sea.1. He provides fish every month equivalent to their tuition fees and his children get extra attention and guidance from the teacher as both the fisherman and his wife are uneducated. means that reefs are not accessible to larger commercial fishing operations. 4. are also used as a form of currency in exchange for favours from officials or in payment for school tuition (Box 2). operating costs in terms of time and fuel are also lower for reef-based fisheries.3 Financial resources Fishing activities represent the main and often only source of income for poor households in the three study communities. both locally and for export. 4. although it is likely to provide a source of sea cucumber and shells for exploitation. which may be tied up in credit or loans or be needed for other purposes.1.turn. Little is known of the relationship between the communities and the seagrass habitats. fish provides the main and 170 . In Guptapara and the nearby village of Wandoor. which he uses for hand-line fishing on the coral reef. house to house by foot or bicycle. In addition to the low investment required for gear.4 Human resources For Panighat and Junglighat communities and the newly immigrant households in Guptapara. Thus the reef protects and provides a haven for the small-scale and low-technology fishing activities and a barrier against larger-scale. who study in the 3rd and 5th standard of primary school. In Junglighat and Panighat. He owns one mechanised boat. combined with the diversity of the resource itself. or even to neighbouring communities by taxi scooter. or through labouring on fishing boats. Bartering in this way is considered much easier than using cash. however. their shallow and complex three-dimensional structure. who are typically the poorer households in the three communities. BOX 2 FISH IN EXCHANGE FOR TUITION FEES An immigrant fisherman from West Bengal lives with his wife and two sons. They are. reef protection also provides calmer waters along the shoreline for cast netting. 4. The diversity of markets available for reef fish. It may also be easier to influence an official with a large Seer fish or with Tiger Prawns than with cash. coral reefs provide shelter to wave action for both seagrass and mangrove habitats. The physical nature of coral reefs. In Junglighat. Boat labour represents the primary livelihood option and income source for households who have only recently immigrated. cast netting is an important means of subsistence fishing when need demands. In terms of the financial resources required to enter a fishing livelihood the investment is relatively low for reef-based fishing. Although only accounting for 7% of fishing activity in Guptapara. from the landing site. the loss of reef protection (due to reef degradation and in Junglighat land reclamation over the reef ) has resulted in increased erosion and wave action along the shore to the extent that reclaiming sea walls have had to be built. they provide important sources of construction material and firewood and safe anchorages for fishing craft. hand-lines are a more attainable option. high-investment commercial fisheries. between 1500 and 2460 tons of reef fish are exported annually. These are in turn accessible to the local fishing communities and immigrant fishing labourers encountered in all three study communities. Mangroves are found throughout the Andaman Islands and although adjacent to the three study communities they are degraded to varying extents. This may either be through fish sales to local markets. causing waves to break along their shallow crests. particularly those used during the rough weather season. provide multiple opportunities for cash generation and sustain the fishery throughout the year. with higher market values compared with locally sold fish. either reef species or pelagic species. where there are few if any man-made buoys or markers. with limited financial resources and limited access to loans or credit. The physical nature of coral reefs. For the new immigrant household.They send their sons for private tuitions and the fisherman finds it easier to supply the teacher with fish rather than pay the teacher tuition fees every month. suitable for smaller craft that can navigate the shallow and hazardous reefs. Reefs can be accessed by non-mechanised boats and the gear required (hand-lines) is simple and cheap and can be easily procured. with many of the reef fishing grounds closer to shore. creates markers for navigation around islands and for reaching fishing grounds. to the fish market and traders.They have a small two-room thatched house and have purchased some land originally encroached by someone else.2 Physical resources Coral reefs play a well-known function in protecting the coast from erosion and the impacts of storms and in doing so they also are known to promote land formation. to export markets via fish traders.1.

5 Social resources The nature of reef resources is such that fishing activities are best carried out on a collaborative basis.1–4. where 60–70 seasonal migrants come for reef-based fishing from West Bengal). for all communities. The export market of reef fish has not only led to expansion of the fishery itself (clearly demonstrated in Guptapara. which are often expensive. especially during the rough weather season. These positive influences are summarised in Table 16 and discussed in more detail in the following sections (4. As revealed in earlier sections. with the administration actively settling fisherfolk in the islands during the late 1950s to 1980s. fish is available throughout the year and is considered a ‘free’ source of food. The Fisheries Department through the Fisheries Regulation Act has promoted the commercialisation of fishing focused on the development of export markets. as well as building confidence and trust between boat labourers and owners. or on reefs or rocks. such as conflict. with little financial or physical resources. organisations and social relations. Fisheries policies in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands have encouraged fisheries development and have given rise to opportunities for fisherybased livelihoods. It is for this very reason that nearby reefs are used extensively during the rough weather seasons. Figure 5). Occasionally in Junglighat and Panighat. boat owners will provide free fish if there is excess catch or smaller discards. one of which (MGMNP) is located close to Guptapara community. operating fishing gear and in boat maintenance and repair. 4.4).2. The productive reef-based fisheries and associated opportunities provide a chance for migrants to improve their livelihood.1 Policies The productive coral reef and marine resources surrounding the Andaman and Nicobar Islands have provided considerable scope for policies promoting fisheries development. Dependence among the more established settlers in Guptapara is slightly less as these households have built up land holdings and cultivation and livestock provide alternative sources of protein. allowing households to save expenditure on alternative sources. which may get caught in strong currents. others will have little or no previous experience and will acquire the skills and knowledge over time. as well as knowledge relating to navigation and. Coral reefs have also provided opportunities for the development of high value export markets of reef species. In terms of health. environment and tourism-related policies. Fishing on nearby reefs requires a relatively short and less exposed journey compared with fishing activities on far off islands and on the open sea. Directly and indirectly. who have previously been involved in fishing activities may already have many of these resources. drought and famine. therefore. reef-based fishing is considered to be less hazardous. One ritual which is carried out in connection with fishing activities.2. The high biodiversity of coral reefs are also increasingly the focus of environmental policies recognising global and local declines in coral reef ecosystems and concerned with reef conservation. whose diet consists almost entirely of rice and fish. which are essential for ensuring a successful catch and safe fishing trip. In addition to providing a source of food and protein. MGMNP 4. is the sprinkling of water over boats before they set off on a fishing trip. Such collaborative work is one of the main routes by which the newly immigrated boat labourers can build up networks and acquire a sense of identity in the community. Part of each fish catch is inevitably not sold but taken home by the boat owner and labourers and consumed by their families. on the request of elderly or sick individuals or widows. which is likely to be a manifestation of their limited association with the local 171 . the fishery is also a source of knowledge and skills. of the different types of species and those that fetch high prices. This usually involves three to four people working together on boats.at times only source of protein in the diet. Hand-lines used in reef-based fishing are also less hazardous to use than the nets used for pelagic fishing. when supplies to the islands are uncertain. There are two marine parks in the islands (Section 1.4. with many families having escaped hardships. institutions. However. These resource are valued by boat owners and are important in gaining a good labouring position on a boat. for the majority of new immigrants to the three study communities. but has also created a constant high value demand throughout the year. Such human resources encompass skills in boat handling. New immigrants. In the Andaman and Nicobar Islands this is manifested through the Wildlife Protection Act which promotes the protection of reefs through marine parks. Religious beliefs associated with the reef and fishery are limited amongst the settler communities.2 DIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS Coral reef and associated coastal and marine resources are the focus of fisheries. Working in this way develops bonds and trust between members of the community. 4.2. such as pulses. environment and fishing livelihood. fisheries provide important opportunities to engage in fishing labour (men) and fish vending (women). on the mainland.1. the reef and associated resources give rise to structures and processes that can positively influence the lives of poor reef-dependent people. to ensure safety and luck in the catch.

2. Within and apart from the government-managed framework of fisheries development. hooks and lines) was also significant. e. 4. including 15 islands and large areas of coral reef. Fishing landing sites and markets were also recognised in the three study communities as playing an important role in the community. J. In contrast. Entry into MGMNP is controlled by the Department of Environment and Forest on a permit basis restricted to tourists visiting the park. Panighat. it also has potential benefits through the enhancement of fish stocks and spill over to nearby fishing grounds. For all three communities. fishing gear supplies Source of credit Fish landing sites and markets Focus for social interaction. potential exists for increased benefits in the future. middlemen Provide access to markets Source of bait. P 1 G. As well as the obvious benefit of providing an outlet 172 . J All All All G Organisations All especially G All especially G All Social relations J. who provide much of the critical infrastructure and services required to access markets. provide opportunities for employment for local communities.TABLE 16 Influencing factors Policies A SUMMARY OF REEF BENEFITS TO DIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS Benefits from the reef Fisheries development Development of fishing sector through active settlement of fisherfolk from mainland India Fisheries Department promotes development of fishery focusing on export species (reef species) Marine park development Wildlife Protection Act promotes protection of reef through establishment of marine park. fish traders and middlemen ranked amongst the top three local institutions in terms of the frequency and perceived importance of their involvement with community members. fisheries are largely controlled and managed by the private fish traders and middlemen. ice. covers an area of 281. and supplies of fishing gear and bait. which in turn provide a large number of diverse opportunities for private traders and middlemen. Guptapara.5 km2. news about new boat labourer opportunities Private tourism related enterprise Opportunities for employment as guide on tourist boats Fishing co-ops Advancing loans Local NGO (ANET) Promote local community participation in research and management GCRMN Funding for socio-economic monitoring and promotion of local objectives/aspirations in management Women Fish vending opportunities for women to obtain cash income and control over expenditures Community1 All G. especially export markets. P. (P) All Institutions G. with all exploitation prohibited. the tourism industry associated with the MGMNP. bait. However. While the MGMNP clearly restricts the fishing activities. While in all communities the provision of credit and loans was recognised as a key role of middlemen and fish traders.g. Middlemen and fish traders are also important sources of credit and may be influential in assisting fisherfolk in accessing government or co-operative society loan schemes. information exchange. The positive benefits to local communities of tourism-related enterprises is so far limited. as guides on boats. in Panighat their role in providing supplies and access to export markets was not apparent within the community. which includes small private enterprises. Marine park shelter reef species and provide source to surrounding fisheries Traders. particularly of fishers from Guptapara. such as tour boat operations. with only one or two households benefiting in this way in Guptapara.2 Institutions The reef and reef-associated fisheries provide a diversity of products for sale. In addition. Junglighat. in Guptapara their role in providing access to export markets and fishing gear supplies (ice. J. but had to be accessed from Port Blair. with the possibility of expansion of tourist developments around the park and elsewhere on the islands and increasing participation of locals in tourism-related activities.

Through these activities women play a pivotal role not only in the local fishing economy. 4. which are subject to seasonal weather patterns.3. such as the Surmai Co-operative Society. worked with local communities to promote their participation in sustainable management of reef and forest resources.1 Seasonality The accessibility of near-shore reef areas allows them to be exploited throughout the year. Table 17 summarises these positive contributions. it also gives them an active role and identity in the community and enables them to establish social networks. BOX 3 WOMEN GAINING CONTROL OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND EXPENDITURE THROUGH FISH VENDING A local woman lives with her family in a small hut. which generally have a better rate of interest than others available. In this way. has.3). women in the three study communities of South Andaman Island were not involved directly in fish harvesting activities. women were not involved in fishing activities. The reef resources are also of concern to environmental groups and initiatives. She has two daughters and a son who go to the nearby government school. while in Guptapara. these institutions are an important place to find boat labour opportunities.2. Guptapara was the only community where a co-operative society was actively providing loans. making distant fishing grounds and off-shore areas inaccessible during the rough weather season months from 173 . Women’s involvement in fish vending not only gives them control of some of the household finances.4 Social relations Unlike other coral reef areas. Once a fishing household has been established in the community for 3 to 5 years they can access these loans. NGOs concerned with the coral reef environment and local community development play a part in providing benefits. 4. but even there middlemen.for fish sales. If their husbands own the boats they are able to sell the best catch and give the rest to other women. Her husband used to go fishing as a boat labourer.3.3 INDIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS The coral reef and related fisheries can positively contribute to the communities ability to cope and exploit the risks or opportunities associated with indirect influencing factors or the background changes which affect the social. Despite this. which they may later exploit for favours or credit. In Junglighat the diversity of local market opportunities for fish vending offer women of recent immigrant households an immediate opportunity to start generating an income. ANET.3 Organisations Reef and reef-associated fisheries are also the focus of local fishing co-operative societies. For recent immigrants. Most of the women in Junglighat and Panighat are involved in vending fish. For example. 4. which is a source of money and loans for the community. 4. takes fish on credit for vending and repays the credit by the evening to the boat owner. such as the case study above. Out of the three study communities. money lenders and the bank were considered to be more important sources for loans than the co-operative society.3. which are described in more detail in the following sections (4. located in Wandoor. which is occupying encroached land on the shore in Junglighat. near to Guptapara. the South Asia node of the GCRMN together with the national ICRMN initiative. In Guptapara women’s involvement in financial management in the households was considered to be a factor contributing to the success of the household. economic. have also provided indirect benefits to local communities adjacent to the MGMNP (including Guptapara). through this study and others.1– 4. who seek to ensure the conservation of the coral reefs’ rich biodiversity and ensure sustainable development in the islands. the reef and reef-associated fishery still provides important opportunities for women through fish processing (mainly drying) and in particular through fish vending. but it is the woman who controls the household income and expenditure. where women may access shallow reef areas and become involved in collecting reef products. but played an important part in decision-making and controlling income from agricultural activities. Every morning the woman goes to the fish landing centre.2. but he fell ill and stopped going a year ago and is now looking for a job which is not so strenuous. This is of significance in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. but also in controlling the household economy (Box 3). both landing sites and markets are also a focus for social interactions and information exchange in the community. In Panighat and Junglighat an estimated 70% of women were involved in fish vending. through their support of socio-economic monitoring and the promotion of local objectives in coral reef management. Her husband brings in some income through occasional employment he finds. environmental and policy context in which the community exist.

3 Trends The recent emergence of markets for reef fish both for export and for local demand has made significant contributions towards households involved in fishing in all three of the study communities. who have the chance to earn good incomes. In Junglighat community. which increase in price during the rough season. including four school-going children and one infant. providing stability overall. They have 3 hectares of land in which they cultivate paddy and vegetables. lowtechnology fishing. a fisherwoman lives with her three sons. but also a source of food and protein. labour opportunities on fishing boats often provide an additional source of income and food for households. many households undertake both farming and fishing activities (Box 4). High value reef species. In this way. Such opportunities are accessible to poor households. especially during the rough weather or low fishing season. which are in demand throughout the year. P. the reef provides a critical safety net and coping mechanism at these times. Panighat. who recently became sick. fishing activity focuses on using hand-lines on nearby reef areas and targeting valuable export species. In this case. providing an important alternative to vegetable sources. such as the dollar fish (Section 1.3. hand-line fishing on 4. This event can completely alter the livelihood status of a household. During this season. BOX 5 FISHERS LOSING NETS AND FALLING BACK ON HAND-LINES BOX 4 FARMING AND FISHING IN GUPTAPARA A local villager of Guptapara lives with his extended family of 13 people. diversifying outlets and acting to buffer any fluctuations in any single market. As described in Box 5. J. (P) All Shocks Trends 1 G. June to October. Recently. with lost opportunities for income and food. They were forced to take a loan from money-lenders to buy a new net. a daughter and her husband. using non-mechanised boats and hand-lines. costing Rs 50 000 (~US$1064). not only is income assured throughout the year.3. 4. increasing the local market for reef species thereby.2 Shocks Loss of fishing nets is a common occurrence amongst fisherfolk of the three study communities. All the family members are involved in farming activities for 4 months.3) are in constant demand for export throughout the year and provide opportunities for low-investment. goats and chickens. 174 . The export demand and market has also had a knock-on effect locally.3. but the other two sons dropped out of school to continue fishing.TABLE 17 A SUMMARY OF REEF BENEFITS TOWARDS COPING WITH INDIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS Influencing factors Seasonality Benefits from the reef Stability Nearby reefs accessible throughout the year Complementarity Nearby reefs can be exploited during off season for pelagic fishery As protein source when alternatives are expensive As a complimentary source of income to agricultural sources Safety net Fishers who have lost nets fall back on hand-lines Market growth Export market for reef species Local market for reef species Community1 All All All G All G. This complementarity adds stability to household livelihood strategies in Guptapara. they lost their net which was torn by a cargo ship. Junglighat. In Guptapara. They also have farm animals such as cows. Likewise labour opportunities in agriculture provide an alternative source of income. Guptapara. The family comprises of fishers and farmers. and until they could procure the new net they used hand-lines and borrowed nets whenever possible. The third son and daughter continue to go to school. Two of his sons are married. J. providing a source of income and food until a new net can be purchased. Alternatively they work as labourers on others’ boats.

traders and middlemen • Improving transport facilities • Landing centre built in Guptapara 1980 • Growth of tourism Impact on strategies and outcomes • Reef fishery provides good alternative to pelagic especially in rough weather season • Emergence of larger-scale commercial fishing operations employing smaller boats to access reef • Increasing reliance on credit from traders or middlemen • Increasing opportunities for local fish vending. which may be undertaken by women • Increasing opportunities to improve income and food security • Sustainability of fishery uncertain. if not properly managed • Increased reliance on credit from traders.5 CHANGES. some fishers opt to illegally fish in park • Increasing risk of punishment (imprisonment and fines) if caught illegally fishing within the park • • • • Increasing periods women absent from home Physical exhaustion from carrying heavy loads Increased income security Increased control of household finance by women Increasing difficulty in obtaining loans from Fisheries Department • High level of temporary migration and insecurity of repayment Reduction in fish catches in nearby areas • Increasing numbers of fishers • Resource degradation. alcoholism • Increased income insecurity and debt • Increasing competition amongst fishers for access to fishing grounds • Increased reliance on credit • Potential income insecurity in rough weather season • Increasing distance to travel to more distant reefs outside park • Increasing risk in rough weather season of lengthier boat trip to reef fishing grounds • Reportedly. they are constantly changing in response to direct and indirect influencing factors. CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES changes in the reef-based livelihoods of the three study communities. The most significant TABLE 18 A SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN REEF-DERIVED LIVELIHOODS. Loss of access to reefs within marine national parks • Increasing concern for conservation and protection of reefs • Increasing value recognised in reef tourism associated with marine national park Increasing numbers of women involved in fish vending • Expanding local market with associated vending opportunities • Increasing household expenditures due to inflation and possibly also increasing gambling and alcoholism • • • • • • Overfishing of nearby reefs Destructive fishing techniques (dynamite) Reclamation for housing in Junglighat Increasing sedimentation due to deforestation Crown-of-Thorns starfish Coral bleaching in creeks Degradation of nearby reefs • Increasing distance and risk to reach distant healthy reef fishing grounds • Loss of protection for cast net fishing • Increased possibility of coastal erosion and risks to boat anchorages and property 175 . Livelihoods are dynamic. • Nearby areas have been over-fished. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND IMPACTS ON SOUTH ANDAMAN ISLAND Changes in reef-derived livelihood Increasing opportunities within the fishery and growth of export and local market opportunities for reef fish Contributing factors • Government policy of fisheries development • Emergence of export houses. which impact upon the strategies households are able to adopt and the ultimate outcomes of those strategies. the factors which contributed to the changes and the impacts of those changes on livelihood strategies and outcomes are outlined in Table 18 below. middlemen or money-lenders • Increase in gambling. with potential for overexploitation of export-driven fishery.

boats and enhance income security in the longer term Changes in reef-derived livelihood Loss of mangrove resource Increasing reliance on credit • • • • Race to improve income and status Emergence of traders and middlemen Loss of government loan schemes Inaccessibility of loans through co-ops or banks for poorer households as they require collateral security • Increasing household expenditures. On the positive side. Fisheries development has also had negative impacts on nearby resources. or if credit managed well income security is possible because credit allows households to maintain purchasing power • Increasingly households bonded to trader. middleman or moneylenders • Increasing opportunities from credit to obtain gear. On the negative side. positive impacts have included increasing opportunities for improving income and food security throughout the year. Unless properly planned and managed. with associated increases in income security and more equitable control of household expenditure. further fisheries development and commercialisation has the potential to extend these impacts on 176 . conservation and migration. traders and middlemen provide opportunities to improve income security and build up resources.TABLE 18 (CONTINUED) Contributing factors • Removal for firewood • Removal for reclamation and housing Impact on strategies and outcomes • In Junglighat loss of mangroves has led to loss of safe anchorage and increased time spent watching boats and bailing out water in exposed anchorage • Loss of firewood source • Income insecurity and debt.01 • Heavy fines if caught selling on illegal market • Supreme Court Order Loss of shell and sea cucumber collection opportunities • Loss of income opportunity Loss of opportunities for immigration to Andaman and Nicobar Islands Total loss of reef-based livelihood for new immigrants (cut off date not yet fixed) • Loss of opportunity to break poverty trap and improve livelihood opportunities • Supreme Court Order • • • • Return to mainland and previous livelihood Increasing vulnerability Increasing income and food security Return to poverty Major changes to the reef-based livelihoods among the study communities on South Andaman Island fall into three main categories: fisheries development. As fisheries have developed and export markets for reef species have grown. There has also been an increasing reliance and bondage to fish traders and middlemen. 5. causing degradation through over-exploitation and destructive fishing. which has both positive and negative outcomes. and increasing opportunities for women in fish vending. traders generally do not give fair prices to the fishers and there is a major risk of increasing debt and income insecurity if finances cannot be managed well. through the provision of infrastructure and credit. depending on the level of exploitation and the ability of households to manage their finances.7. due to high cost of living and inflation of essential commodities • Increasing incidence of gambling and alcoholism and associated expenses • Decline in availability due to over-harvesting in nearby areas • Local fishers are scared off by Thai poachers who collect sea cucumbers extensively and have arms and ammunition • Environmental legislation banning collection and sale as per notification Schedule 1 of Wild Life Protection Act of the Government of India dated 11.1 FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT Fisheries development has had both positive and negative impacts on the livelihood strategies and outcomes of households in the three communities.

Ultimately. the high level of migration into the islands has led to the Supreme Court Order. harvesting marine resources within the national park. distant reefs outside the national park) or in continuing to undertake livelihood options illegally (i. it has also increased pressure on and caused depletion of local resources and in the fishery context has put pressure on the Fisheries Department in providing support to fishers through loans.2 CONSERVATION Changes associated with conservation. or harvesting prohibited species).e. However.the natural resources and reefs. such as the loss of access to resources within the marine national parks and the loss of sea cucumber and shell collection opportunities. Increasing migration and settlement in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands have opened up possibilities and improved the livelihoods of many families. have largely resulted in negative impacts on the livelihood strategies and outcomes of the three communities. The impacts have been felt by the communities through the loss of livelihood opportunities and increasing risks in either accessing alternatives (i. with negative impacts on the sustainability of fisheries based livelihoods.3 MIGRATION Migration patterns have been both the outcome of fisheries and island development and the cause of many changes.e. due to wildlife conservation legislation. it will also have serious impacts on the local communities and in particular the recent immigrant families. 177 . 5. through concern for the sustainability of island development and ecosystems. While the Supreme Court Order has the potential to ensure future sustainability of the islands. 5. who are perhaps the least equipped to cope with this change.

the accessibility of the reef means that they may still enter the fishery using simple and inexpensive hand-lines. It is currently estimated that the settler fishing community on the islands now numbers 20 000 people. Indeed. For the most recent migrants this is most easily accessed as labourers on others boats. Through fishery related opportunities. where immigration levels have been high. Government support for the growing settlements has been significant. which aims to limit the adverse effects of development on the islands in an effort to ensure sustainable development. often combined with net fishing in reef channels or along the reef edge. the coral reef and coastal resources provide the main source of income and protein for immigrant fishers. often escaping hardships. among the settler communities. However. In communities involved in both farming and fishing. hand-line fishing over the reefs constitutes a significant proportion of fishing activities. when distant fishing grounds cannot be reached. particularly in the Great Andaman Island group in the north. against the assumption that the reef will act as a ‘resource bank’. even during the rough weather season. are now considered illegal as the result of a recent Supreme Court Order.6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS poverty amongst migrant families. They have little or no financial and physical resources and have weak social contacts and support both within the community and to the formal government support mechanisms. an activity which is exclusively the domain of men. Migration to the islands began with the British. in many cases fish vending is mainly carried out by women and provides good income opportunities and a source of control over household income and expenditure. Good infrastructure has been developed and high standards of health and education have been reached. where women’s involvement is restricted to fish vending. Combined with the knowledge that there is a real possibility to progress and build up one’s resources through fishing-based The forest covered Andaman and Nicobar Islands lying off the east coast of India and the west coast of Myanmar and Thailand are surrounded by an extensive system of fringing and patch reefs and offshore coral banks. offering a means of alleviating 178 . giving them significant peace of mind and confidence to take loans. reef dependence is not as well developed and knowledge and skills associated with the reef fishery are limited. the reef resource is a major component of their fishing activities. such as drought and famine. primarily originating from mainland India. providing subsidised food and ship fares. the reef provides an important complementary activity to farming and an additional source of food and income. poverty is largely related to how long a household has been settled on the islands. on leased land. Thus. migrants have had a real opportunity to alleviate their poverty. the poor households are generally those who have only recently immigrated to the islands. the population is rapidly growing. However. Nevertheless. living on encroached or non-allotted land. For these settler fishing communities. The good support systems and relatively high standards of living have attracted many mainland Indians to the islands to improve their livelihoods. In this context. which depend on residency period. Support continues through economic subsidies. the nearby reefs provide a critical resource. The wealth of reef and associated resources have provided opportunities for fisheries development in the islands and an entry point for immigration. farming and fisheries-based livelihoods. the reef resource provides a stream of positive benefits to the livelihood outcomes of poorer households. The population of these isolated islands includes six indigenous groups and a settler population. Unlike other reef fisheries where women can access shallow reef resources on foot. such as the loss of fishing nets. The knowledge of the potential of the reef to provide is of great value to the new migrants. maintaining food and income security throughout the year. The current settler population of over 350. and a wealth of opportunities associated with the productive coral reef and near-shore resources. Since independence the island administration has encouraged the migration of mainland Indians to take up forestry. provide a product for exchange and shelter the coasts from erosion. Near-shore reefs can be accessed all year around. which dictates the extent of ownership and access to resources and formal and informal support systems. The diversity of reef products offer opportunities for growing local markets and an expanding export market for high value reef species. and a good catch is always possible tomorrow to pay back a loan. Ultimately. Their accessibility also provides a key safety net in the face of hardships. Typically these poor households are living in rented accommodation. Thus. or on forest encroachments. With land easily encroached from the forest. Many of these families. who established a penal colony and forestry operations in the 1800s. this is not the case in the Andamans. However. which provides good livelihood opportunities and has resulted in an expanding reef fishery. compared to communities who have had long associations with reef resources.000 is relatively small by Indian standards and the population density is generally low.

there is increasing emphasis through the efforts of the GCRMN. The fishery and reef resources in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are still considered to be plentiful and generally in good condition. this has led to a loss of access and reportedly in some cases to illegal fishing activities and generally increasing risks and transaction costs to local fishers. However. the reef resources give a huge sense of well-being and hope for the future. Concern for reef decline globally has promoted international and national policies to conserve biodiversity. 179 . principally those associated with deforestation (logging and encroachment). However. causing significant declines in forest cover and local depletions of coral reef and mangrove resources adjacent to fishing communities. Despite this. Areas of coral reef in the Andaman Islands are now off limits for fishing activities. These restrictions have on the whole been implemented with limited consultation with local fishing communities and for those who formerly relied upon protected reef areas during the rough weather season. in general most reefs are considered relatively healthy. which caused widespread reef mortality throughout the Indian Ocean. which have increased sediment loads to the near-shore waters. having suffered minimal damage during the 1998 coral bleaching event. Frequent incidences of poaching of reef products by Thai and Burmese fishers also poses some threat to the reefs. Externalities affecting coral reef resources are relatively few and mainly limited to activities within the islands. the high levels of immigration and growing local population have resulted in increasing pressure on local resources. meeting both international and local priorities. These efforts are critical to ensure conservation efforts do not exclude the poor and that management is both sustainable and equitable. ICRMN and local NGOs to include local communities in monitoring socio-economic aspects of reef use and encourage the wider participation of local communities in resource management. which focus on conservation and tourism objectives. increasing national legislation over the extraction of reef products. The expanding export market for reef fish is also placing an increasing demand on resources with the possibility of future over-exploitation if not properly managed.livelihoods. protected within marine national parks.

India. A component of IND/95/G4. Vousden D. Sankaran V. (ed) Int. Van Sadan.in 2 Fisheries Department records. with special reference to Middle Andaman Island. Islands arc system in the Andaman Sea. Seth SK. Socio-economic monitoring of the Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park. (7): 881–885. Andaman and Nicobar Regional Centre. Andaman. Geology of Burma. Andamans. A Revised Survey of the Forest Types of India. Andaman and Nicobar Administration. Wildlife Institute of India. Marine Fisheries Resources of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. 1989. pp. A Comprehensive Analysis of the Coral Ecosystem Vis-á-Vis Resource Exploitation around Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Ripley SD. NOTES 1 Source: National Informatics Centre. 1885. Rec. Ltd. 2000. of Petrological Geol 51: 1803–1815. Rajan PT. A new seismic hazard map for the Indian plate region under the global seismic hazard assessment programme. IIPA. Mamallapuram – 603 104. Ltd. 2001. ANET. —— 2000a. Andaman Islands. Sci. Krieger Publishing Company. New Delhi. Subba Rao NV. London. 2nd–5th November 1999. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Corals and coral reefs of India. Raveendran EK. and Other Terrestrial Animals on Tropical Islands. Coral reef ecosystems of the Andaman Islands. 1969. Balakrishnan NP. Chibber HL. 2001. Biannual Bulletin. —— 2000b. 12 (2): 38–43. 1925. Ecological assessment of coral reefs in Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park. Reddy PP. Case study guidelines: Reef Livelihoods Assessment project. Dehradun 2 (1): 38–43. pp. Das I. Oldham RD. Turner JR. The management of coral reef ecosystems of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Mission report – GOI/UNDP GEF. Macmillan. Bay of Bengal. Rodolfo KS. Haddo. New Delhi. Biogeography of the reptiles of South Asia. Satyanarayana C. Ritchie’s Archipelago. 2002. New Delhi. and Lakshadweep. S. 1991. Singh A. University of Ryukyus.. CJ Saldanha and NV Subbarao (eds).. Andamans. Japan. Ministry of Communications and Information Technology website: http://andaman. The Jarawa Contacts and Conflicts. Mangroves of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. 180 . et al. Notes on the geology of the Andaman Islands. The geology of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Port Blair. India. Impact assessment around the Jarawa Reserve. India. UNDP. Wafar WVM. India. GCRMN South Asia Technical Report. Peter G. Mustafa A. Surv. (41). Geol Soc of American Bull 80: 1203–1230. Tigerpaper 22 (4): 22–29. New Delhi. PDF – B Phase. Andaman and Nicobar Islands Environmental Team. Forest Research Institute. Newsl. South Andaman Island. Sci. Sustainable management of protected areas in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. India. Florida. Andaman Islands – Vegetation and floristics.Status. Envis (Wildlife and Protected Areas). Vousden D. Diversity of Reptiles. 5–7 June 1999. 1969. Remote sensing and rapid site assessment survey. Wildlife Institute of India. Tamil Nadu. Rajshekhar C. 1999. Ravi Kumar M. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. In Ota H. Rec of the Geol Surv of India 18 part 3: 137–145. Anim. 2002. Dehradun. Plant Sci. 2000. Current Status. 1934. Middle and South Andaman Island. Malabar. 43–75. Dagar JC. Champion HG. 2001. 19–43. Harrison RN. Policy and Strategy for Development. Beehler. ANI FD 2001. An environmental impact assessment. Pvt. 55–68. India. of India 59: 208–227. —— 1999b. Biogeography of the amphibians and reptiles of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Biswas P. Ornithogeographical affinities of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. 1989. and Conservation. Andaman and Nicobar Islands – Forest and Environment. Survey and assessment of wetlands in the Rani Jhansi Marine National Park. Venkataraman K. Fenner D. Origin. Dehradun. Supply. Amphibians. Andrews HV. FFI.nic. Port Blair. 1986. of the Irula Tribal Women’s Welfare Soc. Sirur HS. Wandoor. Report of Phase 1: April 2001. IMM and SPEECH. In. Okinawa. India. Department of Forest and Environment. Ali R 2002. Ecology of beach rock fauna of the Andaman Islands. Mumbai and Kolkata. Andaman and Nicobar Islands: Conservation Implications. REFERENCES Andrews HV. New Delhi. Unpublished report. A rapid assessment of threats to the coastal environment and their root causes in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. —— 1999. Weeks LR. of the American Ass. Gee FR. 1996. Bathymetry and marine geology of the Andaman Basin and tectonic implications for South Asia. Mongia AD. 1968. Symp. In: Proc. Bull. BM. J Biogeogr 16: 323–332. Nicobar. Anthropological Survey of India. Current Science 77 (3): 447–453. Report. Indian Acad. Impact assessment of the little known Little Andaman Island. of the Geol. Bhatia SC. India. India.7 REFERENCES AND NOTES Kulkarni S. An ecological reconnaissance of Rani Jhansi Marine National Park. GOI/UNDP GEF. Current Science 82. —— 1998. Andaman Islands. Post Bag 4. 2002. 1999. In Proc. 1999a. Bandopadhyay AK. Status of Saltwater Crocodiles in the Andaman Archipelago. Klaus R.

ANNEX 1

VARIATIONS TO FIELD METHODOLOGIES
Guptapara, the population estimated by locals was actually less than official figures, which was thought to be due to changing village boundaries since the last census. The eventual sample size was determined based on all these constraints and availability of time. Attempts at engaging communities in participatory techniques was constrained because of the large number of households in the study sites. In order to overcome this constraint, a household-based questionnaire was introduced as part of the sampling technique in the South Andaman Island study (Annex 3). The questionnaire listed questions pertaining to every aspect of people’s livelihoods, as well as information about indicators, which were of relevance to ANET’s future and ongoing work. Household data sheets also focused on data relevant to the ‘Venn diagrams’ and ‘Overlapping Livelihood Matrix’ (as outlined in IMM and SPEECH, 2002). Household questionnaire data were cross-checked and validated with key informants and focus groups. ‘Triangulation of data’ was also undertaken using key informants and focus groups. These focus groups involved both men and women. Separate groups comprising men and women were also approached to get a holistic picture of issues regarding households and women’s role in earning income. This was aimed at gathering information about expenditures pertaining to gambling, alcoholism and other sensitive issues.

The field methodology specified in the guidelines for the study (IMM and SPEECH, 2002) were followed as closely as was appropriate and possible within time and human constraints. On some occasions variations were made to the field methodology in an attempt to improve data capture or modify the methodology to suit local conditions. This annex outlines the major differences in the applied methodology. Due to the conditions created by the Supreme Court Order, the people in the study areas were extremely wary of the research team. Hence, a modicum of caution was employed in order to gain the necessary information, as people were often hostile and under the assumption that the research team were from the government or the Fisheries Department, in spite of repeated assurances that this was not so. This was a major constraint during the collection of data, thus techniques were used to gain information from people without arousing too much suspicion. Due to the large size of the study communities, in particular Junglighat and Panighat, sampling techniques were used to sample the community, including probability and nonprobability techniques, such as snowball sampling and availability sampling. The ‘true’ population size could not be accurately determined as data from secondary sources were neither precise nor adequate. There has also been unaccounted immigration and encroachment, so the ‘true’ population is expected to be greater than official estimates. In other cases, e.g.

181

ANNEX 2 HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE
Community data
Age group 12 to 20 21 to 29 30 to 38 39 to 47 48 to 56 57 onwards Total in 1990 in 2002

Household data
Named of household and individuals Relationship Age Sex Education Caste Numbers of settlers/non-settlers Number of years since arrival

House type Own house Rented house Rent/month Relative or friends

Kuccha

Pucca

Semi

Sanitation facility

Water supply

Land type Land owned Allotted Land Purchased land Encroached land Others land

Year

Revenue

Amount

[In Junglighat area only] Tax Water House Land Others Total Monthly Yearly

182

Occupations
Previous occupations (list) Current occupations (list) Alternative sources of income (list)

Fishing-based activities
Number of years engaged in fishing Traditional/non-traditional Mechanised/non-mechanised Total number of nets Names of the nets Total number of lines Thickness of lines Total number of hooks Hook size no. Longlines and numbers of hooks Numbers of fishers in 1990 and 2002 Numbers of family members involved in fishing in 1990 and 2002 Number and type of craft used in 1990 and 2002 Gear used in 1990 and 2002 Fishing grounds Area Trips per month Season Months Duration of use of area Species caught Abundance of fish in 1990 and 2002 Fish catch in 1990 and 2002 Price of fish in 1990 and 2002 Beliefs and customs associated with fishing

Fishing season
Month – Month Peak season Average season Off season Fish catch in kg Peak season Average season Off season Per trip Per month Trips per month Total

183

Income from fishing
Boat’s share Own share Monthly share Yearly share Total income per month Total income per year

Fishing expenditure
Expenditure/trip Peak season Quantity Rate/litre or kg/piece Total price Average season Quantity Rate/litre or kg/piece Total price Off season Quantity Rate/litre or kg/piece Total price Diesel Ice Bait Ration

Cost of net per kg Durability of nets Cost of net repairs Cost of boat repairs

Gender
Number of women Women’s role in relation to reefs in 1990 and 2002 Reasons for involvement Mode of fish sales Income per month Women’s role in relation to agriculture

NONFISHING ACTIVITIES Agriculture
Plantation Arecanut Coconut Banana Other Type of vegetable: Production/year Area covered Income/month Income/year Expenses Fertilisers Pesticides Labour Others Cost

184

Private business
Type of Business General shop Tea shop Vegetable vendor Stationery Middleman Others No. of years Income/month Income/Year Others

Festivals and marriages
Names of festivals Dates Expenses Marriage dates Marriage age Expenses

Miscellaneous household expenditure
Expenditure Ration School Tuition House repair Municipal tax Loans Others Total Monthly Yearly

Household loans
Year Co-op Bank State Bank IRDP Panchayat Agriculture Fisheries Industries Money lender Others Paid back Loan amount Interest rate Rate of subsidy Time period of loan

Yes

No

Going on

185

Household savings Savings: State Bank Post Office Sahara Bank Uco-Bank Syndicate Bank Canara Bank Self saving Others Yes/No Monthly savings Yearly savings Total Co-Bank Details of household involvement in lottery Problems faced Problems description Occurrence Causes Impacts 186 .

A Case Study from Lakshadweep Vineeta Hoon 187 .

who gave up their valuable time and knowledge in previous studies which contributed to this report.in 188 .nic. All photos in Study 4 were supplied by Vineeta Hoon and from http://lakshadweep. We also thank Vineeta Hoon for her considerable time in compiling this document and for responding quickly to our many questions. her colleagues from CARESS and collaborators in previous fieldwork from Agatti Island and the Lakshadweep administration are responsible for providing all the information contained within this report.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Vineeta Hoon. Thanks are due to all the local participants.

NOMENCLATURE ACRONYMS ASDO CARESS CHC CIFT CMFRI DoE DoF DST GCRMN GoI ICAR IMR LCRMN LDCL MMR NGO NIO SPORTS ST UT ZSI Additional Subdivisional Officer Centre for Action Research on Environment Science and Society Community Health Centre Central Institute of Fisheries Technology Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute Department of Environment Department of Fisheries Department of Science and Technology Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network Government of India Indian Council for Agricultural Research Infant Mortality Rate Lakshadweep Coral Reef Monitoring Network Lakshadweep Development Co-operation Ltd Maternal Mortality Rate Non-Governmental Organisation National Institute of Oceanography Society for Promotion of Recreation. Shal Coir Copra Ettuvali Jelly Karanwar Madrassas Makkatayam Manju Markez Marumukkathayam Mas Neera Oathapalli Odam Olabala Pandaram Parai Pitti Rs Shal kakal Sharadam Thankis Tharappam Tharawad Thingalacha Thoni Velliyacha Shore seine Main entrance into the lagoon or big channel The island headperson Children’s crêche Net Set net Drag net Shallow entrance into the lagoon or small channel Coconut husk fibre Dried coconut kernel Eight oars Pieces of coral or any other rock. generally used for construction purposes The one who administrates the Tharawad property – generally the brother of the female-head of the family School for religious instruction Patriarchal system Traditional cargo vessels Tuition centre Matrilineal system Parboiled and dried tuna fillet Sweet nectar collected from coconut trees School for religious instruction Traditional sailing craft Fish scaring device used in Bala Fadal Common land Coral reef Sand bank Indian Rupee (exchange rate ~47Rs: 1US$) Set net used at entrance points to the lagoon Local board game using cowrie shell counters Fishing line Traditional wooden rafts Traditional extended family – descendants from the matrilineal line Self-owned property Traditional wooden boats Tharawad property. Tourism and Water Sports Scheduled Tribe Union Territory Zoological Survey of India LOCAL TERMINOLOGY Adi Bala Aliv. or traditionally owned property fom the matrilineal line 189 . Aly Amin Anganbadi Bala Bala Eddenna Bala Fadal. Chandelle Chal.

Information contained in these sources were re-assessed and analysed following the RLA methodology guidelines (IMM and SPEECH. 1990. 2002). 1998. Lakshadweep was included as a case study. was carried out by CARESS as part of a Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) South Asia assessment and monitoring project. which was undertaken on Agatti Island. where the local community has been co-existing with the reef for hundreds of years. Section 6 provides a summary and concluding remarks. ecological. Hoon. identifying what characteristics locally define poor households and estimating the extent of poverty existing in the communities. the westernmost island in the Union Territory. Finally. and Hoon and Shamsuddin 2002). The first two sections of the report give a contextual overview of the study area and study communities. entitled Reef Livelihoods. The most recent of these. Hoon et al. Section 5 outlines how reef-derived livelihoods have changed and discusses the causes of these changes and impacts on poor people’s livelihoods. It illustrates a situation where livelihoods have been highly subsidised by the government and where relatively recent social changes have brought about the emergence of new forms of poverty. 1997. Hoon. The main sources of information for the study were previous studies undertaken by Vineeta Hoon and colleagues (Hoon and Seshadri.BACKGROUND TO THE LAKSHADWEEP CASE STUDY The Lakshadweep case study was carried out as a desk-study in partnership with CARESS following consultation with ICRMN. outlining key social. Benefits arising from the reef resources to all aspects of the livelihoods of the poorer members of the communities are described Section 4. Section 3 discusses the features of poverty in the study communities. in order to highlight the nature of reef-based livelihoods on small coral atoll islands. 2002. focusing on Agatti Island. The following case study report provides a detailed overview of reef-based livelihoods in the Lakshadweep Islands. economic and administrative characteristics of the area and local livelihood systems.. highlighting the key points of the study and aspects of the benefits of reef resources to the livelihoods of poor households and how these have responded to change. 190 .

where the inhabitants speak Mahal and use the Divehi script of the Maldives. The island-wise break up of area and population is presented in Table 2. The population density is 1894 per km2 in 2001 as against 1616 per km2 in 1991 and 1258 per km2 in 1981. Population figures and decadal increases based on census reports are presented in Figure 2. such as Agatti. three reefs. Amini. and useable land area of 26 km2. Andrott. and cultivators (Melacheries). An old dialect of Malayalam is spoken on all the islands except Minicoy. with a total land area of 32 km2. Kiltan. the first islands to be settled were Amini. According to tradition. They comprise 12 atolls.1 SOCIAL SETTING Eleven out of the 36 islands are inhabited. Androth and Kalpeni. five submerged banks. According to a NEERI report published in 1989. Owing to its remoteness and difficult access the Union Territory (UT) of Lakshadweep is classified as a Scheduled Tribe (ST) area. Kadmat Kavaratti. 1. Chetlat and Kadmat. including 36 islands. The caste distinction between Koyas and Melacheries is no longer an issue as both castes have equal opportunity to study and seek employment. The decennial population growth rate of Lakshadweep from 1991–2001 was 23. despite the influence of Islam. sailors (Malmis). Kavaratti. 1990). 100% of the native population is Muslim. however. the Lakshadweep Islands had already exceeded their carrying capacity of population with respect to fresh water supplies (Hoon and Seshadri. Table 1 presents some basic facts about Lakshadweep.40%. its territorial waters of 20 000 km2 and about 400 000 km2 out of the 859 992 km2 of Exclusive Economic Zone of the west coast of India. Lakshadweep is considered the smallest Union Territory of India with a population in 2001 of 60 595. People then moved on to the other islands. which the government is committed to protect. Lakshadweep ranks fourth in the whole of India in terms of population density. The Lakshadweep population has been steadily growing over the last century. The recent changes in building styles and living have already depleted fresh water supply.1 STUDY AREA CONTEXT T he area considered for study is the Lakshadweep Islands located between 8°–12°3´ N latitude and 71–74°E longitude in the Arabian Sea about 225 to 450 km from the Kerala coast of India (Figure 1).41% in the previous decade. 191 . as against 21. they follow a matrilineal code of conduct and the caste system still prevails based on occupation: landowners (Koyas). Bitra. Chetlat.1 In certain senses the Lakshadweep population is fairly homogeneous. Kalpeni. Bangaram. The growth in population poses a heavy drain on the natural resources. This can lead to serious shortages and environmentally harmful practices.34% for India as a whole and 39. These are Agatti. Kiltan and Minicoy. Lakshadweep is a large territory. However considering its lagoon area of 4200 km2. Only those inhabitants who are born on the islands and whose both parents are born on the island are considered as scheduled tribes or native to the islands.

TABLE 1 LAKSHADWEEP ISLANDS.32 km2 4200 km2 Population 2001 Males Females Population density Temperature Range Relative humidity Average annual rainfall 60 595 31 118 29 477 1894 per km2 Max: 35°C–38°C Min: 17°C–18°C 70–75% 1500 mm in northern islands 1640 mm in southern islands 192 .INDIA Arabian Sea Lakshadweep (India) Laccadive Sea Maldives SRI LANKA Equator Figure 1 Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Agatti Island. BASIC FACTS Location Distance 8°N to 12°N latitude and 71°E to 74°E longitude Kavaratti–Calicut 340 km Kavaratti–Kochi 404 km Kavaratti–Mangalore 352 km 36 (10 inhabited. one tourist resort) Territorial waters Economic Zone 20 000km2 400 000km2 Islands Geographical area Land use area Lagoon area 32 km2 26.

Privately owned manjus and government-owned barges are also used to transport goods from Mangalore. which favours male over female interests. The Islamic Shari’a law is gaining popularity for property division. Minicoy. Women consequently enjoy a special status being the owners of the house property and they 193 .37 2.2. Cargo and provisions are carried to the islands by four ships. The Union Territory of Lakshadweep along with the Maldives and the Chagos Archipelagos form an interrupted chain of coral atolls and reefs on a contiguous submarine bank covering a distance of over 2000 km.28 4. Internet connectivity is as yet only in Kavaratti. tractors and for official purposes jeeps and cars are used for internal transport. while the islands are believed to be remnants of submerged mountain cliffs (James et al. motorised two wheelers. Bicycles.58 5. The islands are flat and scarcely rise above 2 m. or Marumukkathayam system adopted from Kerala. 1. In a recent study Hoon et al. Emergency transport facilities. while Kavaratti registers the lowest sex ratio of 829 females for every 1000 males (Census. Cochin and Beypore to the islands. POPULATION AND POPULATION DENSITY Island Area km2 4. 2001). However. On average they are 5–6 km long and less than a kilometre in width.63 2. They are made up of coral sand and boulders.21 and the maternal mortality rate (MMR) was 0. despite the adverse sex ratio for females. auto-rickshaws. The average literacy rate is 87. lagoon. helicopter services and an air service between Agatti and Cochin or Goa. Nuclear families and housing are growing and there is a boom in house construction.70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 0 Figure 2 Population size in UT Lakshadweep since 1901.1 0.11 32 Population 2001 9495 4319 10 720 7072 10 113 7340 5319 3664 2287 266 61 0 60 656 Population density p/km2 2163 1548 2215 1842 2396 2834 1705 2248 2239 2660 105 0 (Average) 1 894 Minicoy Kalpeni Andrott Agatti Kavaratti Amini Kadmat Kiltan Chetlat Bitra Bangaram Uninhabited islets Total are free to take up higher studies and work. TABLE 2 LAND-WISE AREA. rising 3–4 km from the floor of the ocean (Wafer.2 ECOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL SETTING There are four natural ecosystems in the islands: land. registered a favourable sex ratio of 1057 females per 1000 males. there is no apparent gender disparity in education or taking up jobs.71 3. Only one island. Sometimes the old Tharawad family name is abandoned and the children are identified by the new house name. 1986).63 1.59 3. Transport between the islands and with the rest of the country is restricted to weekly ship services..84 2. Lakshadweep has made important strides in health and in 1999 the infant mortality rate (IMR deaths per 1000 under 5 years) was 20. The average sex ratio in 2001 was 947 females for every 1000 males. Direct dialling telephone and fax facilities are found on all the islands. (2002) revealed that the joint family or Tharawad system is beginning to break down. 1986). where property is passed down the female line. Satellite earth stations link the islands with the rest of the world. Lakshadweep is famous for its matrilineal society. which have been Note: includes Bangaram population.04 0.12 1. particularly during the monsoon months from May to August are provided by the helicopter service. 1. reef and ocean.52% and development aspirations are modelled on Kerala State which has the highest literacy rate in the country.1 The land Topography: The islands consist of coral formations built up on the Laccadive–Chagos submarine ridge rising steeply from a depth of about 1500 m to 4000 m off the west coast of India (Figure 3).84. The unfavourable sex ratio for females is of interest since these islands are famous for their matrilineal society. This ridge is supposed to be a continuation of the Arravalli Mountains.

The water is contained in a freshwater lens 1. The coral patches in the eastern lagoon are exposed during low tide.5 km2. Almost all the atolls have a NE–SW orientation with the island on the east.5 km. These chals are therefore favoured locations for reef fishing by net operators and are used extensively by the fishermen during the monsoon season (Hoon and Shamsuddin. The distance in between the inhabited islands varies from 32 km to 182. Ground water: Freshwater resources are limited and the hydrological system is extremely fragile. a broad wellshaped reef on the west and a lagoon in between. seagrass occupies 10.4 km2 (Bahuguna and Nayak. The human settlement in nearly all the islands is concentrated in the wider northern part. These include natural breaks in the reef that allow boats to ply between the ocean and the lagoon.Evapotranspiration Fresh water lens Figure 4 The hydrological cycle.2 Reefs and lagoons Coral reefs of the Lakshadweep Islands are mainly of atoll type except one platform reef at Androth. All of them are wide in the north and taper off towards the south. On the leeward side the reef slopes into the sea. All the islands have a north–south axis. The reef flat occupies an area of 136. The first plateau is found around a depth of 5–6 m.9 km2 and the lagoon occupies 309. This 1. The chals are important since these are the points where the fish shoals enter and leave the lagoon with the tidal change. 2002). The eastern reef flat faces the highest stress from trampling by reef gleaners and net operators since it is easily accessible by foot. water is periodically renewed by rainfall. These lagoons are protected by the reefs on the outer edge. except for Andrott. Androth is the largest island with an area of 4. This area is locally called the bar area and is favoured by fishermen for harpooning and spearing specific kinds of rays and big fish. locally known as chals. Figure 3 Diagram illustrating atoll island formation. Several of the islands have small islets separated from them by a narrow channel. 194 . The shore is rocky and composed of disintegrated corals in the east and extreme north and south of the islands. The lagoons have sand bottoms with scattered coral boulders and pinnacles followed by extensive seagrass beds at the landward side. which lies on an east–west axis. The depth of the sea increases outside the coral reef and can reach up to 1500–3000 m. Conserving and protecting the freshwater lens from pollutants is of critical concern as it is likely to be very expensive to replace if depleted. During high tide. The reef on the eastern side is closer to the island and the lagoon is very shallow.5 km apart. It is possible to walk to these islets during very low tides. which lie only 9. 1994). The second plateau with sandy patches is found around 25–30 m (Hoon.2. water exchange takes place between the lagoon and the open sea over the reef. There are many man-made pits and inland depressions in the islands dug out for the coir-retting industry and for growing cereal crops. compacted into sand stone. On the western side the soils are mostly sandy intermingled with patches of disintegrated coral debris. 1997). except in the case of Amini and Kadmat. Soil fertility and water holding capacity are extremely poor in such parts and it is difficult to grow plants except for coconut on the western side of the islands. as well as other small shallow entrances. and provide a safe anchorage for small vessels. Soils: The soils of the islands are structureless.5 m below the surface (Figure 4). formed by the disintegration of coral debris.84 km2 and the only island that does not have a lagoon. The lagoon opens to the sea through one or more natural entrance points.

The territorial waters used by the islanders cover only 20 000 km2 of this entire area. 1996. in 1996 the Kadmath resort and dive centre opened up to target national dive tourists and in 1999 the Agatti Island beach resort opened. 1996). coir fibre factories. There are plans to promote more tourist resorts with dive centres in Minicoy. The ocean contains substantial living and nonliving (e. 1991). 15 species of sea urchins and 120 species of fish are found in Lakshadweep (Rodrigues. molluscs and crustaceans. shark. Noddy and Large Crested Terns Cone shells Cowrie shells (Cyprae tigris. Porities spp.The lagoon and reef flat fauna are dominated by Acropora spp. which are favoured by islanders. and massive and encrusting favids. lagoons and ocean ecosystems is great and has been well documented.) which forms the dominant coral in the lagoon (Pillai.. coconut BOX 1 REEF BIODIVERSITY IN LAKSHADWEEP The National Institute of Oceanography (NIO). seer fish and half-beaks move about in shoals around the islands. 1989).3 ECONOMIC SETTING Human activity within the UT of Lakshadweep centres around fishing. Tourism is an emerging industry on the islands and is controlled by the Lakshadweep administration who leases out land for resorts to operators from the mainland. the biodiversity associated with the coral reefs. Kavaratti and other islands. there are no large populations of any one kind. Pocillopora spp.. There is a profusion of blue coral (Helipora coerulea.1. 6 species of brittle stars. Psammocora spp. Eighty-six species of macrophytes. Sharks. such as tuna fish canning in Minicoy and.3 The ocean The islands appear as tiny specks in the vast expanse of ocean and yet because of them. Millepora spp. Several tuna varieties. 10 species of Anomuran crabs. about 400 000 km2 of the sea can be claimed by India as an exclusive fishing zone. 155 species of gastropods. As described in Box 1. rays and a large number of food fish are frequent in these waters. are now officially notified as endangered by the Government of India and their extraction is totally banned. 81 species of Brachyran crabs.. 24 species of bivalves.2.The ZSI carried out extensive surveys in 1982–1987 and published in 1991 a volume on the fauna of Lakshadweep (ZSI.The CMFRI carried out a survey from January to March 1987 to study the fishery potential. the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI) and the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) have undertaken several studies in this region during the past nine decades. Many of the species. as listed below. Until 1990 there was only one tourist resort at Bangaram catering for international tourists. 1996). Despite the high diversity of species on the reef. are vulnerable to over-fishing and many species are classified as endangered in government notifications. There is also modest development of light industry. coconut cultivation and coir twisting. 13 species of sea stars. Hence species of fish. which culminated in the publication of a special issue on Lakshadweep (CMFRI. 1. prohibiting their exploitation by local islanders. coral shingle and sand) resources. 1996). moneta.) Sea Cucumbers (all Holothurian) Sponges (all Calcareans) Reef building coral (all Scleractinians) Sea Fan (all Gorgonians) Birds Molluscs (shells) Echinoderms Corals 195 . List of notified endangered species found in Lakshadweep Reptiles Cetaceans Fish Hawksbill Turtle Green Turtle Dolphins Sharks and Rays Sea Horse Grouper Sooty. 23 species of sea cucumbers. etc. Rodrigues.The green turtle and the hawksbill turtle are also found in all the islands – they graze on the seagrass beds and frequent the bar area and lagoon area. is common in the northern islands.g. The coral fauna of Lakshadweep is known to harbour a total of 134 species (Pillai.

while the lower caste Melacheris and Malmis were the coconut climbers and boatmen and sailors. Bangaram was leased out to the Amin (local administrative head) of Agatti for 20 years provided he planted a certain stipulated number of coconut trees. In the immediate post-independence period. Parali and Suheli. Fishing technology and tuna fishing methods are also included as part of the curriculum as a unique feature of the school syllabus on the islands. however. This system was also followed on the other islands when pole and line fishing was introduced and it ensured that all the members of the Tharawad family. 1. 196 . Bangaram. in which they have to develop and implement 5-year plans. attracted by the coir trade. The administrator and all the other Indian administrative officers who are posted in Lakshadweep are directly answerable to the central government and are only posted to the islands on a short term of 3 years.oil press. Instead the profits are shared between the fishing boat owner and crew and the income no longer benefits the entire Tharawad family. and the British managed to wrest direct control of the islands from the rulers of Malabar in 1905. the British administration enjoyed both revenue from land and the profits from the coir trade from the uninhabited and the inhabited islands of Lakshadweep. law and order. Fishing is the mainstay of the economy. To encourage more youth to take up tuna fishing as a profession. The Lakshadweep Development Corporation set up by the Island Development Authority oversees the economic and commercial activities of the islands. owning coconut trees became the wealth and status marker among the islanders. Since then the tuna fishery has been streamlined through extending training and improving technology on all the islands. Coconut cultivation and the coir trade were the main activities of interest for the rulers and significantly. educated but unemployed or traditionally skilled members of the family have been left behind to pursue tuna fishing and reef-related activities as opposed to steady salaried government employment options. Fishing activities were merely a subsistence activity. including preparation of the parboiled and sun-dried tuna mas or mas meen. Island Council members were almost always appointed by the administration and had no real administrative powers. which now exists. The decentralised Dweep Panchayat system. printing press and pickle-making units on other islands.3% subsidy towards the cost of a boat engine. but is directly governed by the central government in New Delhi. The Cheras ruled the islands followed by the Kolathris. The Portuguese and British also showed interest in these islands. In Minicoy the women undertake all the post-harvest activities. However. It was not until the 1960s that the administration started focusing on developing the fishery commercially and only in the 1990s did they recognise that there was an economic potential in reef-related tourism. The same was done at Kalpitti. Kavaratti Island is the administrative headquarters. is a democratically elected local body which can make representations to the central government. Ali Rajas of Cannanore. the Department of Fisheries provides a 20% subsidy towards the cost of a tuna fishing boat and 33. the less-educated. The administrator is the head of the Union Territory. Since independence. These changes are relatively recent but have rapidly created polarity and income disparity within the island populations. comprising 15 members from each island. the Amin of Agatti surrendered his lease and Bangaram was auctioned for another 5-year lease period.4 ADMINISTRATIVE SETTING Records show that various rulers and dynasties have administered the islands of Lakshadweep since the eleventh century. Today on Agatti Island the women have no role to play even in the post-harvest and preparation of tuna mas. In the 1990s the Island Council replaced this as an advisory body to the administration on island matters. In 1880 a system of dividing land into blocks was introduced by the British to the uninhabited islands of Tinnakara. this was not always the case and historical records show that none of the previous rulers of Lakshadweep showed any attention to developing the coral reef and marine resources. The district magistrate who is also the collector-cum-development commissioner in the islands deals with matters relating to district administration. In 1904. Outside the fisheries sector. including women and children. In the late 1960s in Agatti and other islands of Lakshadweep pole and line tuna fishing was popularised from Minicoy where it is a traditional activity. In this way. In 1956–1958. Tipu Sultan and the Bibi of Arakal. Lakshadweep has been a Union Territory and therefore does not have a state government machinery. a Block Development Committee was present whose members were nominated by the Administration. with little scope for revenue. this was replaced by the Citizen’s Council again nominated by the administration. were involved in the economic activity and thereby benefited. Even today the Indian administration has continued this system of auctioning and leasing land to tourist resort operators from the mainland. government jobs are a major source of income and have allowed households to prosper and in many cases have resulted in them opting for a nuclear family. Thus the high caste Koyas owned the coconut trees. Women’s involvement in the commercial fishery is mainly in post-harvest activities.

The island covers a total area of 2. Owing to the remoteness of Lakshadweep and the high cost of transportation. It therefore has developed at a faster rate and has better facilities than many of the other islands As Agatti Island Seasonal variability of livelihoods Community organization Community Services As Agatti Island As Agatti Island Some islands have better facilities than others. with a decadal growth rate of 23. Figure 6 shows that Agatti has a steadily growing population. 2002). including 3688 males and 3384 females.2 According to a recent survey. The following sections provide an overview of Agatti Island and islanders. 197 . 2.g.1 GEOGRAPHICAL AND SOCIAL SETTING Agatti Island is the westernmost island in the UT of Lakshadweep located at 10°51´N and 72°11´E. Despite evidence that the joint family or Tharawad system is beginning to break down. Thus. ranging from 3 to 23 household members..2 COMMUNITY CONTEXT the national average with 1842 per km2 as against 1492 per km2 in 1991 and 731 per km2 in 1951. An explanation for this skewed sex ratio may be the introduction of male labour from Tamil Nadu. The rise in population has led to an increase in the number of households in Agatti. as well as the Scheduled Tribe status. The exact figure for 2001 has not yet been enumerated. the average household size is 9.36. Most of the households are members of the Island Co-operative Society • Agatti has an advantage over the other islands since the airport is located here. with 74% of households surveyed in a recent study reporting that the house they lived in belonged to their mother. e. the Marumukkathayam system is still prevalent on Agatti. most things are provided to the islanders at a subsidised cost. Perumal Par • There is a change in livelihood options in the monsoon and fair season • Tuna fishing and bait collection dominates in the fair season and lagoon fishing in the monsoon season • Homogeneous community. The sex ratio on Agatti of 918 females for every 1000 males. who have been enumerated in the recent census.7 km2 stretching 7. islanders are provided with free education and health care The study area chosen in Lakshadweep was Agatti Island. where according to the 2001 census. which have quadrupled since 1951 (Figure 7).5 km in length with the width varying from 1000 m at its widest point in the north to 100 m at its narrowest in the south. The traditional fishing and land rights of the people of Agatti extend as far as Perumal Par reef and include the small islet of Kalpitti off the south of Agatti Island (Figure 5). which is summarised in Table 3 below. while the others report that they live in their father’s house (Makkatayam) or in their own house built on land inherited from either parent (Hoon et al. lives. The 2001 census indicates that the population density is over five times TABLE 3 Characteristics SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS OF AGATTI ISLAND Agatti Island Deep sea Lagoon Reef Land – – – – – – Tuna and shark fishing Net and line fishing Gleaning and collecting construction materials Coconut plantation Salaried jobs in government establishments Jobs in tourism at Bangaram and Agatti resorts Lakshadweep As Agatti Island Livelihood options and diversity Access to the reef • High accessibility to island reef throughout the year. The Lakshadweep administration plans have been welfareoriented since independence and have concentrated on improving living conditions on the islands and mitigating isolation as far as possible.40 between 1981 and 1991. with a single religion (Islam). The area of human settlement is concentrated in the northern end of the island. • Accessibility only during the fair season (Oct–May) to reefs lying far away from the islands. an atoll like most of the islands in Lakshadweep. a population of 7072. Joint families are the norm and frequently three or even four generations live under one roof. The 1991 census reports a total number of 868 households in Agatti Island.

Legend Tuna grounds Shark fishing Cast net Hand line Octopus Cowrie Reef Pilli – sand bank Reef channel/ entrance Figure 5 A map illustrating the traditional fishing and land rights of the people of Agatti (map not to scale). 198 .

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 Figure 6 Population in Agatti since 1951. Two inter-island ferry vessels connect the islands with Kavaratti once a week in the fair season. On Agatti Island more than one-third of the households own motorised two wheelers.49 and Maternal Mortality Rate is zero. The Lakshadweep airport is located on Agatti and there is a daily flight from Kochi. The Infant Mortality Rate of Agatti is 26. on the mainland. three junior basic schools and one nursery school Community Health Centre Comments Education is free and subsidised Health Health care is free and subsidised A health clinic has been functioning since 1998 and is currently being upgraded Serious cases are evacuated to either Kavaratti or the mainland by helicopter Every household has a well.5% out of a total literate population of 5170 (2272 women and 2898 men). Three-wheel autorickshaws provide a taxi service and other entrepreneurs have set up repair workshops for these vehicles. sugar. but lower than the national average. There are also five passenger cargo ships that serve Agatti Island and connect it with mainland and the other islands. Only government departments own four-wheel transport. The bicycle is the most common mode of private transportation. palm oil and kerosene and subsidised transport to the mainland. most with electric pumps Eighty households have plastic tanks for rain water harvesting promoted by the Public Works Department No direct sewage pipe to the lagoon or sea Dry wastes from sewage buried in the beach The population is entirely Muslim Water Well water Harvested rain water All household with latrines and septic tank Forty-nine mosques Five Madrassas and one Markez (religious schools and tuition centres) Thirty-eight privately owned stores in Agatti Bank and post office Sanitation Religion Markets/supplies Finance Multipurpose shops and services provided Syndicate bank functioning since 1976 199 . during which period some private entrepreneurs also ply their boats between the islands as taxies. However. TABLE 4 Sector Education SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE ON AGATTI ISLAND Infrastructure Six educational institutions. which is slightly above the average literacy rate for Lakshadweep of 87.3 Literacy rate on Agatti is 88. both figures are slightly higher than that the Union Territory average. Figure 7 Total number of households in Agatti since 1951.52%. A summary of other social infrastructure on Agatti Island is given in Table 4 below. with affluence motorised two wheelers have become very popular. services as well as rations of cereals. including one high school. one senior basic school. Agatti Island was electrified in 1968 and long distance telecommunication has been made possible through satellite connections.

1996. enclosing Agatti Island with a lagoon on the western side of the island. According to an income survey a boat owner typically makes around Rs 60 000 (~US$1277) annually after paying all the running costs and the crew earns approximately. are undertaken by every household to supplement the main source of income.2 ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC SETTING Agatti shares similar ecological characteristics to the other islands in Lakshadweep. On this basis one tuna boat of 10 people earn around Rs 240 000 (~US$511) annually and the 85 tuna boats in Agatti make a total income of Rs 20 400 000 (~US$434 043) after deducting their fishing-related expenses.1 Fishery activities The total fish catch in Agatti during 2000 was 2 344 430 kg this was composed primarily of tuna (74%). as described in Section 1. 2002). show greater degradation than those reefs further away (Rodrigues. which is the most energy intensive and capital intensive of all reef-related activities.4 According to the 2000 fish landings data a total of 1 740 540 kg of tuna fish were landed for a total value of Rs 34 810 000 (~US$740 638) (Table 5)..). Fresh fish (reef fish and tuna) are sold for around Rs 20/kg (~US$0. so boats only make day trips there for tuna fishing. salaried employment in the tourist resorts and Madrassa (religious schools) or working as contract labour are also sources of income. This market consists of the government employees. Hoon et al. Also within the reef at the southern most end of Agatti.2. The returns for tuna fishing are high. 80% of the households on the island have multiple sources of income. is the small uninhabited islet of Kalpitti (Figure 5). Source: Hoon et al.2. 90% of the households rear two or three goats and chickens as a dietary supplement. and self-employment (e. followed by the tuna fishery. with the exception of the eastern reef. 2002 Figure 9 Patterns of primary employment amongst the economically active population of Agatti Island. line fishing. separated by a narrow channel. etc. forms an ellipse. Tuna fishing: Tuna fishing (Figure 10) is dependent on bait collected from the reef area.2. Thinnakara and Parelli and the sunken reef known as Perumal Par. In common with the rest of Lakshadweep. the surrounding natural resources form the basis of the traditional economy of the people of Agatti. teashops. A coral reef.. These areas are owned by the Agatti Islanders and some of them have temporary shacks on Bangaram. Source: Hoon et al. There is now emerging a small market for fresh fish and other reef resources within the island itself. 2002 200 . As illustrated in Figures 8 and 9. Self Tuna fishing employment 7% 14% Reef lagoon 1% Private salary 2% Agriculture 5% Self employment 6% Agriculture 21% Reef lagoon 12% Private salary Government 4% 30% Government 71% Tuna fishing 27% Figure 8 Sources of income generation in Agatti Island. The 1998 coral bleaching event caused widespread coral mortality on the reefs. followed by lagoon or reef fish (25%) and all other deep sea fish (1%) (Table 5). which can be most easily accessed all year around. which lies along its eastern arc. This market is over and above what is directly consumed in the fisher households. Apart from bait fishing for the tuna fishery.. In addition. which includes the nearby islands and surrounding reefs of Bangaram.. 2002). Coconut cultivation. Figure 5 indicates the areas from where the Agatti Islanders draw their resources. reef-related activities. cowrie and shingle collection. 8 km in length and 5 km in breadth. usually a combination of fishing or agriculture and outside employment. the present day economy on Agatti is driven by government sector employment.g. The market for reef resources lies on the mainland. In 1990 a tourist resort was opened on Bangaram Island and since 1991. have shifted residence to Bangaram and live there all year around. as well as three pickle-making units and the tourist resorts. Rs 18 000 (~US$383) annually (Hoon et al. 2. motorcycle repair. who do not have the time to fish but have purchasing power. There is no place to spend a night on Perumal Par reef. 61 people. which are currently showing some signs of recovery. including the tourist resort staff. which is constantly used for gleaning and reef walking. grocery shops.4/kg) within the island. which revolves around coconut grown on the land and fishing in the lagoon and ocean. The coral reefs closest to the island. such as cast-netting.

shingle and boulder collection: Coral sand.2 Agricultural activities Coconut cultivation: Historically the traditional income source came from coconut plantations and the products derived from 201 . in the past he marketed 2. However. Other fish catch is sold fresh. Octopus collection: Agatti has an abundance of octopus.2. shingle and boulder are required for building construction.01–0. aquaria trade or sea cucumber trade. Cowrie collection: Cowries have a market in the mainland as curios and large cowries can fetch a price of Rs 15 (~US$0. Only one-fifth of the amount collected is sold. and salting and drying octopus and shark fins.3) each. All these activities have been banned by the government. However. such as Androth where octopus are not plentiful (Box 2). Box 1). So far the reef resources are not extracted for high value markets. collection is now illegal and the future of this activity is uncertain.50 and Rs 1 (~US$0. There are said to be 10 people on Agatti who collect these materials for sale. Post harvest activities: Limited indirect employment opportunities are available within the fish processing and marketing sector.02). Modern post-harvest facilities are not available in Agatti and therefore post-harvest processing is limited to the picklemaking units and producing tuna mas by parboiling and sun drying tuna fillets (Figure 11). Most people collect it for personal use. The market price for a 20 kg bag of any of these materials is around Rs 15–20 (~US$0. TABLE 5 FISH LANDINGS ON AGATTI ISLAND DURING 2000 Oceanic Tuna Barakuda Sail fish Seer fish Shark Cornex Flying fish Rainbow Runner Total Landings (kg) 1 740 540 360 6090 5755 14 910 910 120 1080 1 769 765 Reef and lagoon Coral fish Gar fish Goat fish Octopus Purches Rays Trigger fish Miscellaneous Total Landings (kg) 320 2660 290 1810 1750 335 140 567 360 574 665 250 000 cowries in 1 year. as all cowries are now listed as endangered species (Section 1.4). Catch is low and varies between 2–8 kg per unit effort of gear used. while the small tiger and money cowries are sold for between Rs 0. this activity is now restricted through legislation (Box 2).Figure 10 Pole and line tuna fishing in Lakshadweep. such as the live fish trade.6) per kg. According to one of the manju (traditional cargo sailing vessels) owners. At a conservative estimate 500 tons of these materials are collected per annum for building construction.3–0.4–0. Coral sand. hence the octopus caught are dried and sold to other islands. Source: Department of Fisheries Reef and lagoon fishing: Reef fish are caught in the reef and lagoon by a large variety of techniques and are consumed locally or sold to the tourist resorts for Rs 20–30 (~US$0.2. while others collect it for their own use.

The economic activities of fishing and harvesting coconuts are work assigned to males. Every islander strives to own a few coconut trees. 58% of households have at least one person employed in the government sector.BOX 2 SHARING OF RESOURCES BETWEEN ISLANDS A 50-year-old octopus hunter on Agatti Island.Armed with this equipment he found it easy to hunt octopus. He sells his dried octopus to Androth Island. This is the main reason why owning coconut trees continue to have a high prestige value. there are still several landlords and owners of coconut trees in the island who provide income opportunities in tree climbing for harvesting the coconut. is employed with his wife in government service.2. 2.4 Gender roles Women tend not to be self-employed and play a small role in the economic sphere of the island life. 202 . They are also allowed to harvest leaves for weaving mats and making a variety of other things. copra and coir. Such labourers are paid in kind and receive one-third of the coconuts harvested. Other posts are filled as far as possible by islanders. Other jobs available are in the co-operative society (see Section 2.2. The link with Androth developed since some traders from Androth visited his island and offered to buy all the dried octopus that he could supply. escorts. This has been supported by government policy to provide employment to at least one person from every household. The tree climbers also collect sweet necter called neera from the young trees and sell the same to the local Figure 11 Men preparing tuna mas on Agatti Island.3 below). They have 13 children. he with the Harbour Department and she with the Anganbadi (children’s crêche).The 11 younger children study in school. or in self-employment. The two older boys aged 23 and 21 are married and have one son each. or as crew on cargo vessels. Women confine themselves to domestic work or reef gleaning (cowrie collection) and only go for employment if they get government office jobs. Lower end jobs are also available at the tourist resorts such as boat drivers. contributing to 71% of the total income generated on the island and providing the primary employment opportunity for 30% of the economically active people on the island (Figures 8 and 9). Administration departments with direct involvement the coconut tree. Island populations have quadrupled and the per capita land and coconut trees owned have declined. However.3 ADMINISTRATIVE SETTING Today the top administrative staff are posted to the islands for 3 years from mainland India. resorts or make palm jaggery. A basic high school degree is needed for these jobs. He began octopus hunting five years ago when a tourist at Bangaram presented him with a dive mask and snorkel. He hunts for octopus after office hours and on holidays. The income derived from the coconut plantations is now marginal. 2. 2. such as fencing using the rib of the leaf. He told us that three fresh octopi were dried to make 1 kg of dried octopus which could fetch Rs 150/kg (~US$3/kg). waiters and room cleaners. These are important sources of income for poor households in Agatti. The unique situation in Agatti is that males carry out even the post-harvest work of processing copra and fish (Figure 11).3 Government and private sector activities Government sector jobs are currently one of the most important sources of household income on Agatti Island.

granite jelly. is present on each island. Weather in the islands is seasonal.in the coral reef resources include the Department of Science and Technology. with a fair season lasting from October to April. All islanders are members of this society and can exchange copra for provisions (general as well as consumer electric appliances) at subsidised rates.4 VULNERABILITIES The islanders of Agatti face a number of risks and vulnerabilities in their livelihoods. 99% of copra is sold through the society. including Agatti. when seas are rough and there is heavy rain.5 FACTORS CONTROLLING LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES For the islanders of Agatti there are a number of key factors which influence the nature of their livelihood opportunities. Human disturbances. the availability of these resources for local islanders is restricted by government legislation. Sources within the society say that 100 people have availed these subsidies for materials for house construction between 1999 and 2001 (Hoon et al. A Wildlife Warden or Science and Technology Technical Assistant. culture. This has turned some traditional livelihood opportunities into illegal activities. which are a serious threat for the low-lying coral atolls of the Lakshadweep Islands. there are also uncertainties related to the surrounding natural resources. However. During the monsoon season fishing activities are restricted to the lagoons and near-shore reefs and the islands are cut off from the mainland as ship voyages are cancelled. with the risk of fines and punishment for those that continue to extract protected species. such as the dredging and widening of channels. and is threatened by both natural and human disturbances. responsible for monitoring. and the monsoon season from May to September. 2. 2002). Those people with good mainland marketing contacts prefer to sell their copra directly to the mainland. assessment and research. when the seas are calm. II and III was washed away. The availability of marine resources is also a critical factor for local livelihoods. creating opportunities firstly in the tuna fishery. the isolation of the islands limits access to markets. as described in Section 2. Fisheries-based activities are inherently risky. Government support and subsidies: these have become a major part of the island economy. 2002). games and tournaments. as communications have improved this has become less of a barrier. There is also the risk of cyclonic depressions and severe storms. Fresh water resources are limited and with the growing 203 . Coral disease. In 1999 the co-operative society also started to issue construction materials such as river sand. there are also 12 voluntary organisations or NGOs on Agatti focused on promoting arts. higher education and associated opportunities. The Agatti Island Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd was first set up in 1962 to facilitate the islanders in buying provisions and rations and other essential commodities at a fair price. population on Agatti this will become an increasing vulnerability in people’s lives. which bans the collection of endangered species. during a storm in 1976 the Bangaram lagoon that encompasses the islands of Bangaram.. It is also leading to the breakdown of the extended family and Tharawad systems and a growing numbers of nuclear families. such as cowries and hard coral. cement and iron rods on subsidy. At the same time. In contrast the vast marine resource offers many opportunities. However. Tinnakara. with consequences for equity and poverty as discussed in the next section (Section 3). responsible for fisheries management and promotion of deep sea fishing. bleaching and damage from storms are examples of real dangers to the availability of near-shore reef and lagoon resources. responsible for coastal management and biodiversity conservation and protection. A recent study estimated that 80% of these organisations were not currently functioning (Hoon et al. the impacts of weather and storms will have increasingly severe consequences. In addition to the government administrative system and co-operative societies. which are restricted primarily to coconut cultivation and coir production.. 2. but access is limited by seasonal weather and threats to availability. but also the uncertainties of weather and fish catch. coral boulder collection and boat anchoring have also caused damage to the near-shore reef and lagoon resources. Parelli I.4 above. For example. In addition to the risks associated with the weather. who also acts as a warden. In the face of climate change and sea-level rise. in government sector employment and more recently in tourism Isolation: the geographical isolation of the islands and limited communications creates a high level of dependency among islanders to help one another in times of distress and a strong attitude of sharing work and resources. the Department of Environment. and the Department of Fisheries. In addition. many of which have been discussed in previous sections and are summarized below: Access to and status of natural resources: the limited terrestrial resources available determine opportunities for agriculture or other land-based activities. not only as a result of the hazards of operating a boat and fishing gear. Population growth and breakdown of traditional Marumukkathayam and Tharawad systems: a growing population is increasing the demand on local resources and the competition for employment opportunities.

poverty refers to such families characterised by: (a) lack of land and property. people of the lower castes have had opportunities to prosper. One percent of the households surveyed in 2001 reported an annual household income of more than Rs 300 000 (US$ 6383) (Hoon et al. The Tharawad system provided a safety net for all its members. (b) households without a source of regular cash income. self-owned property. Nevertheless. These households are considered below the poverty line. 3. However. Owing to the affirmative action schemes of the Government of India. 2002). 2002. i. The earning members pooled their earnings to a common kitty and the matriarch assured that no one went hungry. There are no special caste differences for poor or rich families and a recent survey found that the poor families followed both the Marumukkathayam and Makkatayam systems and could be both nuclear and joint families (Hoon et al. At the other end of the spectrum 10% of the total households in the 2001 survey. (b) lack of a regular income for family subsistence. Four different income groups or classes are found in Agatti Island as represented in Table 6. 204 . are unique and cannot be compared with that of an average lowincome group representative from other parts of the country. etc. etc. In common with the general description of poverty above. the income earned is not evenly distributed and the households where more than two people have a secure government job are considered the wealthiest households. Figure 12 shows the income distribution across households in Agatti. government subsidies combined with affirmative action schemes targeting the Scheduled Tribes and lower castes have had positive impacts on the overall status of the islands and people.1 OVERVIEW OF POVERTY Wealth in the traditional Lakshadweep context is described with reference to those families or individuals with considerable production of copra from self-owned coconut plots. and (2) those families with Thingalacha property.e. However. Wealth is explained based on the income generated from property. the local definition of poverty in Agatti is: (a) households dependent on large landowners for livelihood. Now these families are referred to as those ‘well to do’. Wealth was also associated with ownership of sailing vessels known as Odams for transporting the copra and coir from the islands to the mainland and in turn rice and other commodities back to the islands. The average per capita annual income was Rs 7168 3. Their per capita annual income is around US$34. despite this the absolute numbers of poor people are on the increase. for the expenses.e.. industrial endeavours. until recently wealth was considered on the merit of owning large plots with large numbers of coconut palms in the plots. In Lakshadweep. through higher education and secure government jobs. it is important to also note that the society here is far from egalitarian. The system of joint family wealth has largely been eroded and the patriarchal system of individual possession of property and other assets is preferred over the traditional matrilineal Tharawad or joint family system. It must be noted. ASDO. employment. had an annual income of less than Rs 15 000 (US$319).. labour. and the nature of ‘poverty’ here must be seen in a different context. Thus. i. business. however. Now with the growth in population and break down of the Tharawad one can begin to see poor relations. that the situation on the islands is very different from that on the mainland. and (c) inability to cover expenses during the year. the question of shelter. Thus two categories of wealth status can be observed: (1) those families with Velliyacha property. On the other side of the scale. Tharawad property.3 POOR STAKEHOLDERS (~US$153) and the average household annual income was Rs 68 000 (~US$1447). Today the above description of wealth has been replaced by a definition of wealth or poverty in terms of the financial status of each family. Every member contributed to the best of their ability and were in return assured a minimum meal and roof irrespective of whether they were earning members or not. 2002). with the average proportion of people officially below the poverty line in Lakshadweep at 15% varying from 20–25% in Kadmat Island to 10% in Agatti (Shamsuddin.. 2002). The most vulnerable groups are those who were forced into nuclear families due to disintegration of the Tharawad style joint family and those families who do not have an able-bodied man contributing to the household sustenance.2 POOR STAKEHOLDERS ON AGATTI ISLAND Poverty on the island is not immediately discernable since all the people appear to lead simple lifestyles and dress and eat simply. the nature of spending.

multiple source of income Nil • • • • No land or coconut trees Cast net Survival skills Use firewood for cooking Education Occupation characteristics Graduate or high school • Lower level government job • Tuna fishing • Several earning members Source of income Bank balance Physical resources Multiple sources of income Yes Own land. two wheeler • Goats. 205 . outboard engine. motor cycle Electrical conveniences such as washing machines. hens. 4 and 5) give clear examples of the living conditions of the poor on Agatti Island. widows with small children and the unemployed fall into the most vulnerable group. which makes this case study’s economic survival in Agatti far better than his counterparts in other states. They are illiterate or have primary education. two wheeler • Wet grinder. multiple sources of income Nil • • • • Some trees Fishing rod Nets Thoni. Single. hen • Some electrical conveniences Main use for collecting bait fish. wet grinder. where the only male in the family is elderly with no access (or limited access) to the resources of both the land and the sea. clothing and shelter for his family even though the family lacks purchasing power. 2002). calves Can pay to have others collect building materials and fish • • • • Multiple sources of income Yes • Own land. They can also be educated unemployed who have no fishing skills. cooking gas stoves • Goats. coconut trees Manju owner Tiller. divorced women. hens Reef Use Main use as a supplementary income or during monsoon for subsistence Use for subsistence and survival Source: Survey and focused group discussion held in Agatti (Hoon et al. Perhaps the tenets of Islam help in terms of communal sharing and the ideas of charity. the case study is a fairly young householder and thanks to his fishing skills and labour he is able to take care of the minimum needs of food. Also there is very little scope for spending that may be seen as an important ‘relief ’ factor in such cases. Elderly men. etc. auto-rickshaw. The second case (Box 4). (c) households with inadequate purchasing power.TABLE 6 WEALTH CHARACTERISTICS IN AGATTI ISLAND Rich Annual income % of population House type Above Rs 250 000 (>US$5319) 1% Concrete modern house with compound wall Post graduate • High ranking government official • More than two members on government payroll • Own Manju or business Upper Middle class Rs 250 000–60 001 (US$5319–1277) 39% Standard modern house Lower Middle class Rs 60 000–15 000 (US$276–319) 50% Traditional house with tiled roof Secondary or primary school • Tuna fishing boat crew • Lagoon fisherman • Casual employment in government department • Employed in private business or resort Poor Below Rs 15 000 (<US$319) 10% House with tiled or thatch roof Often run down Primary school • Depend on big landowners for livelihood • Live by taking alms • Devoid of regular income • No employed male • Widows or destitute women • Casual labour supplemented with reef. octopus. The case studies represent two different kinds of situations. TV • Goats. hence cannot get gainful employment.. and (d) households with no able-bodied male. outboard engine • Bicycle. The poor are those who are equipped with very few survival skills. In the first case (Box 3). lagoon fishing and gleaning Single. refrigerators. coconut trees • Own boat. is representative of the poorest economic class. The following three case studies (Boxes 3.

a hardship which has been exacerbated by her own ill health and lack of direct family support.These days he rarely harpoons or makes thatch due to his age.30 26 25 21 % Households 20 15 10 5 1 0 Over 250 100– 150 30 – 60 Below 15000 9 10 10 23 Annual income (Rs) Figure 12 Income distribution on Agatti Island. The family’s survival is totally dependent on their ability to toil and collect resources from the surrounding natural resources. He also goes octopus hunting and joins other groups for collecting boulders and shingle. They live in a small house on the north eastern side of the island. Thanks to the free education on the islands.They do not have piped water in the house and have to draw water from a well. From time to time they are employed as unskilled labour in government employment schemes. but currently are left to their own devices.They totally rely on the reef and lagoon for their livelihood. His wife used to be a regular reef gleaner but now she finds she has less opportunity because of the new baby in the family. What support that does exist comes from the government welfare system. he used to beat coconut husks. He used to supplement this by harpooning and fishing with others. Their home has an electricity supply and their electrical equipment consists of two light bulbs.They use firewood for cooking and the wife and children gather fallen coconut fronds etc. a tube light and a fan. BOX 3 POOR HOUSEHOLD CASE STUDY 1 Case study 1 concerns a traditional reef fisherman. 206 . However. He calls himself ‘the poorer of the poor’ on the island. however this is not sufficient and has to be subsidised by support from her extended family. for cooking. all the children of school-going age attend school and the Madrassa. He says that he survives only by the help of fellow islanders. While he is unable to say how much income he makes from each of these activities. He himself does not own any coconut trees and must request permission from the coconut tree owners to collect leaves.Today he makes about Rs 200 (~US$4) a year.The house is small and built with their own labour and help from friends using locally available shingle and boulders. However. and would collect and sell the fibre of damaged coconuts. who are below the age of 15. The final case study (Box 5) is an example of a elderly woman who has been pushed into poverty through the loss of her husband. government interventions distinguishing the economically lesser-off sections and providing them scope for earning a decent livelihood do not appear to be clearly visible. He goes cast netting everyday when the weather is favourable both at the reef entrance point and the shore. 30 years from today. The fisherman owns a bala beeshal (cast net). BOX 4 POOR HOUSEHOLD CASE STUDY 2 Case study 2 concerns a man of 65 who makes and sells thatch from coconut leaves for a living. he is able to estimate that on averages he earns an annual cash income of Rs 12 000 (~US$255). In the past. Case study 1 claims that it is only thanks to his good health and the reef and lagoon resources that his family’s survival is ensured. He and his wife have only a primary school education and have no prospects of getting a salaried job. she and her older children glean the eastern reef whenever the opportunity presents itself.The two children in the primary school receive one free midday meal at school. The ‘blanket’5 category of Scheduled Tribe for the whole island has undoubtedly helped the higher castes and more resourceful sections access support and subsidies compared to the more vulnerable members of society. who lives with his wife aged 35 years and their six children.

provides her shelter and purchases the 35 kg subsidised rice which is enough to feed the whole family. When she was in her late twenties she broke her arm in an accident and ever since then she has been unable to work with her hands and the household lost the supplementary income contribution she made.The niece is also a widow and has six children. They lived off the reef and the coconut plantations of wealthy landowners. She has been recognised as being below the poverty line and is eligible to receive 35 kg or rice per month at the subsidised price of Rs 3/kg (~US$0. against Rs 10/kg (~US$0. who is also her neighbour. Her niece. 207 .The house she lived in started disintegrating for lack of maintenance and is now unfit for habitation. Since they had a six-oar boat they never went far from the reef.06). died 14 years ago.20) She however does not have enough money to cover even this subsidised price.BOX 5 POOR HOUSEHOLD CASE STUDY 3 Case study 3 concerns an 81 year old widow. He harpooned fish and joined other teams of fishermen and helped them with fishing. the eldest are a part of a tuna fishing crew and contribute to the family income. Her husband. a harpoon fisherman. She used to make coir from coconut husks and glean the reef for cowries and edible molluscs. After her husband died she had no-one to support her for they had no children.

1. The services that the reef provides to the poor ultimately benefits them by contributing to positive changes in the outcomes of their livelihoods.4 REEF LIVELIHOODS TABLE 7 A SUMMARY OF REEF BENEFITS TO HOUSEHOLD RESOURCES Resource Natural Benefits from the reef Diverse and productive resource Diversity of reef fish. These direct influencing structures and processes emanate from government. the private sector and society. human and social resources of poor households on Agatti Island is described in the following sections (4. the Lakshadweep Islands are surrounded by a vast ocean resource.1. and to coping with the risks and vulnerabilities associated with indirect influencing factors (Section 4. These reef-related resources contribute to the building blocks of the livelihoods of the poor and ultimately to the livelihood outcomes that they aspire to.1).1 RESOURCES The contribution of coral reefs to the natural. octopus.1–4. economic.1. 4. Physical Financial Human 4.3). These resources can be grouped under five headings: natural. physical. octopus.2). environmental and policy context in which the poor exist. The reef also has the potential to directly contribute to the livelihood strategies that the poor adopt to use the resources they can access. Some of these benefits arise because reefs can contribute to the resources that the poor have access to. These outcome changes are best defined and measured by the poor themselves if they are to meaningfully represent positive improvements in their lives. physical. to respond to the structures and processes that influence them and to cope with the background context of indirect influencing factors in which they operate. financial. financial. molluscs Diversity of bait fish for tuna fishery Tuna fish on reef edge Interaction with adjacent ecosystems Lagoon and seagrass beds Island ecosystem – promotes island formation Physical barrier Protects islands from erosion Provides safe harbour for anchorage Shelters lagoon for fishing and soaking coconut leaves for mat weaving Construction materials and tools Coral boulders. focusing on reef benefits to household resources (Section 4. including fish. with coral islands surrounded by lagoons and reefs and these in turn surrounded by the open Social 208 . through use of reef bait fish Reef products for exchange Sharing of reef products between islands Reef products for other products or favours Low investment Accessible without boat Simple locally available boats and gear Food and protein source Main protein source Medicinal values Cowrie shells Skills and knowledge Folk knowledge of reef resource Skills in operating diverse fishing gear Island traditions and rituals Folklore and songs associated with island and reef ecosystem Traditional practices and resource governance Collaborative extraction Undertaken in different fisheries operations and reef gleaning Coral reefs have the potential to provide a stream of benefits to the poor on Agatti Island. beach shingle and sand Cowrie shells as curios and games counters Navigation Passage around islands and into lagoons Cash income Sales of reef products. social and human. cowries Indirectly from tuna fishery.5) and summarised in Table 7.1 Natural resources As described in Section 1. In addition the reef can enhance the way the poor interact with the structures and processes that directly influence the way they access and use their resources. to enhancing interactions with direct influencing factors (Section 4. The following sections describe the many different streams of benefits to the livelihoods of the ‘poor’ households or stakeholders on Agatti Island. They in turn interact with the longer-term and periodically catastrophic background changes that affect the social. We refer to these as the indirect influencing factors.

copra. protection of seagrass and lagoon ecosystems and as a feeding ground for larger pelagic predators. essential for the pole and line tuna fishery. Locally reef products may be exchanged between islanders for favours. molluscs. Although collection of live coral boulders has been officially banned. octopus and cowrie collection as their main occupation (Hoon et al. It also provides the source of bait fish. while the reef itself attracts schools of feeding tuna particularly during the fair season between October and April. fundamental to island formation. 2002). They make up 12% of the economically active population that depend on the reef or lagoon for their annual income and generate 1% of the total income of the island. Each part of this ocean ecosystem is a source of renewable resources for the island community. 4. with 12% of poor households completely dependent on the reef for 100% of household income. 4. coconut trees.1. Figure 13 Weaving coconut leaves for thatching. known as chals (small channels) or aly (big channels). providing coconut.1. The reef itself is highly productive and provides a diversity of species which are exploited for food and cash. The open ocean is the focus of the pelagic pole and line and deep sea fisheries. etc. The direct contribution of the reef to the financial resources of poor households on Agatti is significant. for example Agatti Island is known for its abundance of octopus which is exchanged with Androth Island. which provide nearly a third of primary livelihood opportunities for households on Agatti (Section 2. The lagoon and seagrass areas also provide a home for juvenile reef fish and a feeding area for sea turtles. are used as passageways into the lagoons by local boats.2 Physical resources Surrounded by vast oceans the islands are exposed to storms and cyclones.ocean. For the poor households on Agatti this is an important ‘free’ source of building material and cash. The lagoon and seagrass areas provide a source of food and income. sediments or the daily and seasonal migration of species. 2002). The reef provides protection from these storms for personal assets (houses.). with the combined fish catch from the reef and lagoon contributing to one quarter of the total catch for Agatti in 2000 (Table 5). 209 . Resources not locally available are the focus for exchange between islands.3 Financial resources The reef contributes to income generation and subsistence on Agatti Island both directly from the reef resources and indirectly from reef-related ocean resources. 20% of the households on Agatti report lagoon fishing. and also limited vegetable cultivation for household consumption. All these natural systems are interlinked exchanging energy in the form of nutrients. which has been broken down through wave action or fish grazing) are collected from beaches around the island. Coral boulders are collected from the lagoon. leaves for fencing and thatch (Figure 13). illegal collection continues. It also shelters the lagoon providing a safe anchorage and an area for soaking coconut leaves for mat weaving. the natural resources of Agatti contribute to 20% of the total income generated in the island and 60% of primary livelihood options for the islanders. Figure 9). such as help in constructing a house or net mending. Reef crests and breaking waves are used as a matter of course in daily navigation around and between islands. with an estimated 10 households dependent on this to meet 40% of their cash income.. or shingle and sand (originally coral. The coral reef is one part of the larger ocean ecosystem but the part it plays is a critical one. known locally as Pullikavadi is kept by the islanders and used as a counter in board games known as Sharadam. or they may be exchanged for other products such as rice. When combined with the indirect benefits from ocean and land resources.. Reef resources are also used in exchange between islanders and between islands. or shingle. Natural channels in the reef. According to a recent survey. especially by the poorer households who cannot afford the expensive alternative imported materials. coconuts or fish on another occasion. One type of cowrie shell.2. The shells collected on the reef are sold mainly as curios to traders on the mainland. The corals that built the island also provide building material for house construction for the islanders (Hoon et al. The island is the source of fresh water and agricultural land resources primarily for coconut cultivation. while 59% of poor households rely on the reef for 70% of their household income and the remaining 29% of poor households rely on the reef for 50% of their household income.

1. more fish and general well-being.4 Human resources The reef provides food and food security for the islanders. During over 400 years of occupation and survival. whose coming to shore is considered as a harbinger of prosperity for that year. In the past fishing groups would take permission from the Amin (island head person) and go fishing to the grounds allotted by him. bringing more coconuts. Songs that women sing recollect the women looking for Odams and requesting the waves to be gentler and the breeze just right for the sails. which can yield 10–12 small fish (approximately 1 kg) for household consumption.1. There is hardly any tale or song which does not mention the traditional sailing crafts. A simple small cast net. This practice no longer exists. known as Beesh Bala. For example. but also as a necessity in the operation of many fishing techniques. There are stories of the sea ghost baluvam. These products are also an important source of cash for poorer families (as described above) for buying other food stuffs. as illustrated in Annex 1. the adventures of fishing in the sea and encounters with sea creatures (Box 6). local naming system or folk taxonomy. known as Thonis. Exploitation of such vast and diverse resources as the reef and lagoon surrounding the island has encouraged collaborative efforts mainly for purposes of safety. naming fish according to shape: depth of the body from dorsal to ventral fin. however there remains a code of conduct or etiquette in using the resource (Box 7) and a common respect of this is an effective way of avoiding conflict or disputes. 210 . Reef gleaning for cowrie collection by groups of 6–10 women is also a common activity and today even though the economic significance for households has become marginalised. For example. A multitude of different fishing techniques are still used by the islanders. The reef is regarded by the islanders as a common property resource and all the islanders have an equal right to use the lagoon and reef resources. The abundance of each species at different fishing grounds is also well known. They have knowledge of numerous different types of fish and where they can be found according to the tide or lunar cycle.5 Social resources The reef is an integral part of island traditions and rituals. normally one of the best or biggest fish. known as Tharappam. the journeys of enterprising ‘heroes’. Ever since the islanders occupied Lakshadweep and made it their home they have developed traditions and a way of life reflecting the island ecosystem.g. constituting 90% of the protein consumed by poorer families. Sometimes the same species is given different names depending on its size and age. The money cowrie. octopus and molluscs. known as Odams. are not expensive and all the households in Agatti own at least one. They have also developed a 4. The boats operating in the lagoon and near-shore reef are small nonmechanised traditional wooden rowing boats. As well as acting as a food source. Most of the folklore of the people of Lakshadweep revolves around the reef and sea. a leaf bag and plastic slippers are all that are required to undertake this activity. Food sources from the reefs are diverse. Cast nets. These are constructed locally and have low running costs. the activity continues as a recreational activity for the women involved. have developed an intimate knowledge of the reef resource. as described in Annex 1. On returning the Amin was given a share of the catch. the reef and reef-related resources are used for medicinal purposes. a benevolent ghost. especially the subsistence fishers. some of which can be used without the need of a boat. the islanders. each with a specific niche targeting certain areas of the reef and particular species. The islanders’ intimate knowledge of the reef resource is used together with a wide range of skills and techniques which have evolved simultaneously in order to successfully exploit the diverse reef resource. or rafts.Figure 14 Kal moodsal fishing in Agatti lagoon. the practice known as Kal moodsal is a simple activity carried out by children and adults close to shore at low tide throughout the year in the shallow eastern lagoon of Agatti. a full grown Emperor fish is called Metti and a juvenile is called Killokam. an indigenous gear and operation known as Bala fadal involves 25–30 men (Box 8). including different types of fish. 4. locally known as Vallakavadi is collected from the reef and is a common home remedy as a paste to treat cysts or stys in the eye. In terms of the financial resources required to exploit the reef resources the investment is minimal relying on simple locally available tools and gear. e.

and environment-related policies.2.The fish on the reef are attracted to the olabala and swim towards it. with excess sold at the landing site. They have observed that shoals of kanna chenna (Carrangdeu family) enter the lagoon through chals or shallow entrances of the reefs at the beginning of high tide and move out during low tide. the cast net fishermen will come to his standing place at the chal an hour earlier. therefore. So please come. I have also seen you On the white sands at the beach side Playing sharadam (island chess) Come come and swallow the bait. swallow the tender bait which is offered. Parape and such places. If the expected time is 7 a.1–4. and used primarily for household consumption. organisations and social relations.2 DIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS Coral reef and associated coastal and marine resources are the focus of fisheries. September 2002. The group is divided into two. He will then stand and wait for the shoals to appear and cast his net and catch the fish at the appropriate time. I tried to catch you but you did not come to my hook. Directly and indirectly. The fishermen consult the tide.The olabala are then pulled slowly to shore with the fish swimming along until they reach the shore. 4.4) 4. These fish shoals can be caught while they move together as they enter with the high tide or when they leave with the low tide. there can be a problem if more than one fishermen wants to operate at the same chal at the same time. southeast and southwest of Kalpitti.. first-served. BOX 7 TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICES The fishers practise a space-sharing etiquette while using the cast net at any given fishing site. the reef and associated resources give rise to structures and processes that can positively influence the lives of poor reefdependent people.The average catch per operation is 250 kg.There are two Bala Fadal groups on the island. on Kunthalpara. They move northwards. and this is shared amongst the operators and gear owners. (4. only one group operates the Bala Fadal at a time. This operation is carried out around three times a week during the monsoon. I have seen you on the road side near belliyapura Dancing with your friends. Hei Puliparva I have seen you on the shores of sheikpalli I have seen you in the high seas. Swallow the bait on the hook.1 Policies The extensive and productive reef and ocean resources surrounding the Lakshadweep Islands have been the focus of BOX 8 BALA FADAL: AN EXAMPLE OF COLLABORATIVE FISHING ON AGATTI ISLAND Bala Fadal involves 25–30 men and is carried out during the monsoon in the southern side of the lagoon near Kalpitti and occasionally in the northern end of the lagoon.BOX 6 A LOVE SONG FROM KILTAN ISLAND Hei Puliparva (female flying fish) Hello beautifully spotted puliparva Bite bite the bait. 211 .The cast-net fishermen explained that Mankkam (Goat fish) generally abound in the western lagoon near the tower. Translated by Dr Mullakoya.The customary practice is first-come.m. Furachi (Whip Fin Majjara) can be caught on the eastern side of the reef and western side of the jetty. institutions. the other group shoots the olabala (fish-scaring devices made of coconut fronds attached to 15–20 m of rope) over the reef forming an arc.2. near the sea shore. Kuluval (Cerangid family) occur in Parape. Thithira (Mullet) occur at the entrance of the Sheikhinna palliya chal and move northwards. Since there are limited number of chal or entrance points on the reef. These positive influences are summarised in Table 8 and discussed in more detail in the following sections. the jetty. Here the net operators quickly circle the fish and haul them up.2.The late-comer is required to find another place to cast his net and if all are occupied he must return to the island without fishing. One group stays at the shore and spreads out the net.

TABLE 8 A SUMMARY OF REEF BENEFITS TO DIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS Influencing factors Policies Benefits from the reef Fisheries development Promotion of tuna and deep sea shark fishery Tourism development Establishment of tourist resorts Environmental protection Ban on use of plastic bags on islands Notification banning live coral collection Administration (Dept of Science and Technology. and benefits to the poor households is limited to the sales of local products.e. Over the last decade reef biodiversity and reef decline has been the centre of attention for international and national environmental protection policies. with diesel on subsidy. Around 6% of poor households on Agatti exploit this as a livelihood opportunity and source of food and income. which are dependent on reef bait fish. fisheries development has resulted in greater mechanisation and the loss of some job opportunities. For the poor households on Agatti these policies and developments have provided livelihood opportunities as crew on tuna fishing boats. which in turn has increased job and income-earning opportunities on the islands. the introduction of the sprayer on tuna boats has replaced the job of two people. For example. At the same time. which began in the 1990s. shells and local handicrafts. previously required to chum the water. ICAR Local panchayat Welfare support and alternative income generating activities Co-operative societies Fishermen’s Co-operative Society and Lakshadweep Development Co-operation Ltd (LDCL) NGOs (CARESS) Opportunities for local participation and training through GCRMN/ICRMN initiatives Community and women Reef is accessible to young and old Accessibility of reef provides opportunities for women to engage in harvest Institutions Organisations Social relations fisheries development. and deep sea fishing. one on Agatti Island itself and one on nearby Bangaram Island. the middleclass households. Currently there are two nearby resorts. Boats were given on hire-purchase schemes at very low interest rates. with the intensive plan of the government and the Fisheries Department to exploit the sea for commerce. however. 473 small boats (8 m) and five large boats (13 m) for tuna and shark fishing were given away. i. Coastal and reef-related tourism has also been the focus of development activities. This was first highlighted in 1983 through a government circular emphasising the need to stop coral boulder collection and restricting lagoon and reef-fishing activities to locals for subsistence needs. In Lakshadweep the concern also recognises the role of the reef resource in supporting the tuna fishery through bait fish. These developments provide alternative sources of income either directly as staff on the resort or indirectly through their demand for fish. In 1984 the government stopped blasting the reef for deepening and dredging navigational channels and in the 1990s several notifications were issued to regulate shingle collection and prohibit coral boulder collection. the use of plastic bags on the islands was banned in order to remove the threat of entangling and damaging corals. CMFRI. came many novel ideas about enhancing the potential of the fishermen of Lakshadweep. However. which began in the 1960s. In the early phase. In the early 1990s. Dept of Environment) ICRMN and LCRMN provide opportunities for local participation and training Research institutions CIFT. Most recently in 2001 a government notifica- 212 . In 1998. This has mainly been focused on the development of the tuna pole and line fishery. access to direct employment opportunities is restricted to those with good education. This has resulted in growing numbers of tuna boats.

The immediate impact of environmental protection policies for poor households is not always a positive one and in many instances they have restricted their activities.4 Social relations The reef and lagoon resources of Agatti Island. sea cucumbers and certain species of fish. 213 . again it has so far disappointed people in not being able to live up to its basic objectives. Since the 1980s CMFRI has researched techniques to increase production of marketable species through aquaculture. unlike many other fisheries. however. 4.2.15). Not only does this provide a supplementary source of income which the women can control.2. CMFRI. which permits access by young and old. and even today only a small market exists within the islands itself for fresh fish and octopus. Once again.3 Organisations The reef and ocean resources and the fisheries they support are the target of a number of local organisations. in the longer term and with enhanced participation by the poorer stakeholders and development of alternative opportunities. NGOs. namely CARESS.2 Institutions In association with the concern for the reef environment and environmental policies. Through history. economic and cultural dimension of reef resource use. the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Environment have set up the Lakshadweep Coral Reef Monitoring Network (LCRMN) in co-ordination with the Indian Coral Reef Monitoring Network (ICRMN) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. This initiative has attracted government funding and is actively promoting training and opportunities for participation of local islanders in monitoring their surrounding reef resources.tion has banned the collection of many reef resources. Figure 15 Women reef gleaners on Agatti Island. octopus and ornamental shells. are collected. The question of marketing has always been a pertinent one in Lakshadweep. women are involved in harvesting activities through reef gleaning and Kal moodsal fishing (see Section 4. Coral reef resources and resource use have also been the focus of various research institutions (CIFT. are close by and shallow. For the local fishers of Agatti. have also been active in providing training and opportunities for participation in assessing and monitoring of the social. the islands have always depended on the mainland for their market. the benefits of this research has yet to be felt by the poor stakeholders on Agatti. The Lakshadweep Development Corporation Ltd (LDCL) was set up as an autonomous body under the administration to fill the lacuna of a market. others concerned with promoting local awareness and involvement in coral reef monitoring activities. This is a significant factor. making them accessible by foot. most fishermen today lament the fact that the co-operative has had little impact in securing an immediate market for their produce. shells.13). in common with all the islands in Lakshadweep. while CIFT has developed technologies for income generation for women. Consequently. particularly cowries. investigating ways of enhancing or diversifying resource use. Such research has potential to assist poor stakeholders in identifying and developing more sustainable livelihoods. In association with the LCRMN and ICRMN mentioned above and the regional Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN). including coral. which are only accessible by boat and thus exclude women. such initiatives are important as potential entry points and catalysts for local participation in resource management. where all kinds of edible shell fish. some concerned with the welfare and rights of fishers. However. a Fishermen’s Co-operative Society was established in the early 1990s to assist fishermen in securing direct markets for their fishery products and reducing dependence on middlemen for sales on the mainland. However. these policies have the potential to bring positive impacts by allowing the reef resources to rejuvenate and ensuring the sustainability of the resources on which the poor depend. This participation has the potential of enhancing local involvement in resource management. Reef gleaning is a group activity (as described in Section 4. ICAR).2. male and female. 4. 4. Despite the intentions of the Co- operative Society and the potential benefit for local fishermen. nor has it been able to do away with the concept of middlemen.

economic. the reef and lagoon provide the only source of protein during the monsoon. as a break from household duties and a chance to chat together away from the men. even during bad weather. The accessibility of the reef and lagoon and the protection offered by the reef in bad weather. She feels that the cowrie quantities are cyclic.3. is still of great value.2 Shocks The accessibility of the reef resource throughout the year to all the islanders. In the monsoon season. reef gleaning forms an important share of household income.1–4. 6% of 4. was one of the key informants about cowrie collection on the island. a cowrie collector.3.3 INDIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS The coral reef and related fisheries can positively contribute to the community’s ability to cope and exploit the risks or opportunities associated with indirect influencing factors or the background changes which affect the social.BOX 9 PROFILE OF A COWRIE COLLECTOR On Agatti Island.1 Seasonality The coral reef and associated coastal resources provide a huge diversity of habitats and species for exploitation. She enjoys collecting cowries since she feels free and unfettered on the reef. means that the reef provides a constant and stable food and income source all year around. which are described in more detail in the sections following (4. She learnt to collect cowries from her mother and aunts. 4. The reef resources also provide an important food source in these periods. when the supply ships are often cancelled due to the bad weather. This gear has not changed since she was a child. Others believe that other cowries from the deep sea come and take the place of the ones that are collected. who are unable to stock up with food prior to the monsoon. She explains that what they take during the fair season is replaced during the monsoon season. Income or food from the reef and lagoon provide coping mechanisms when members of a household migrate away to exploit opportunities elsewhere and fail to send back remittances. In addition. The eastern reef flat is very shallow and cowries were available in plenty. This diversity of opportunities provides a source of income and food throughout the entire year. without distinction of age. No special clothing is worn to go for cowrie collection. In this period she can leave the domestic routine and go into the vastness of the reef. With practice she became an expert cowrie collector. reef and lagoon fishing provide a critical alternative to the tuna fishery (Box 10). Table 9 summarises these positive contributions. when five months of bad weather prohibits boats plying the high seas. they wear rubber slippers or shoes to walk on the reef. She learnt to glean the reef and poke out cowries from the reef platform and mud flats using sharp sticks and iron hooks. To protect their feet. 214 . surrounded by the deep and vast ocean. caste or wealth means that the reef can provide an immediate fall back or safety net when households face a sudden hardship. They mainly took her with them to the eastern reef flat. environmental and policy context in which the community exist. handicrafts Shocks Trends it is also the source of extensive understanding and knowledge about the reef resource. which women accumulate from a young age (Box 9). shells. chat with her companions and be herself. gender. its importance for women as a recreation. for about ten households on Agatti where the people are old and uneducated living by subsistence means alone. While on the whole financial dependence on reef gleaning has diminished. overcoming seasonal variations in accessibility or availability of any particular habitat or species. TABLE 9 A SUMMARY OF REEF BENEFITS TOWARDS COPING WITH INDIRECT INFLUENCING FACTORS Influencing factors Seasonality Benefits from the reef Stability Diversity of products throughout the year Complementarity Nearby reefs can be exploited during off season for tuna fishery Safety net Opportunity to cope with loss of earning member of households Food source in times of famine Market growth Increasing income of local population provides local market for fresh fish Increasing demand from tourist resorts for fish. She has been going to the reef with them from the age of 9 or 10. 4. For the poorest households. In this way the reef resource can act as a critical safety net and buffer from abject poverty for female-headed households. or when a husband divorces his wife.3.3). She was very knowledgeable about where to collect cowries and how to collect them.3. Collection is seasonal and takes place only during the fair season. aged 47.

3 Trends Although still limited. this growing demand for local BOX 11 REEF RESOURCES AS A COPING MECHANISM AGAINST FAMINE A 52-year-old man on Agatti Island. The reef resources have also assisted households in overcoming famine (Box 11). He recalls that once there was a famine when he was a little boy.. He is committed to work for four households on Agatti Island. Increasing population on the islands combined with growing prosperity.The yield from the coconuts was very low and they did not have any money to buy food. with no education. including fish. Weather condition Activity Cowrie collection1 Octopus hunting1/2 Cast netting3 Drag netting4 Harpooning2 Shore hand line4 Boat hand line2/4/5 Light and sword3 Trap over boulder1 Pole and line Tuna1/3/4 Key: 1 Stormy May Jun July Wet Aug Sep Oct Calm season Nov Dec Jan Feb Hot Mar Apr inner reef male 2 outer reef female 3 lagoon shore 4 lagoon 5 deep sea the poor households on Agatti have been abandoned by their main earning member and have no alternative but to rely on the reef and lagoon resources to obtain food and some income to survive. although the sale of ornamental shells is discouraged by the resorts. due to lack of time or. the tourist resorts have also increased demand for reef products. in the case of nuclear families and families on transfer from other islands.BOX 10 A SEASONAL CALENDAR FOR SEA-BASED ACTIVITIES ON AGATTI ISLAND The seasonal calendar was prepared during a focused group discussion with stakeholders presently involved in these activities on Agatti Island (Hoon et al. 4. octopus. the local market for fresh fish has increased in recent years. Many of the households involved in government service have purchasing power but are unable to exploit the reef.3. His family has always relied on local natural resources for their survival. no support from extended family to provide reef fish. In addition to the local population. has provided opportunities for growth in the local fish trade and associated income-earning opportunities for local fishermen. In return he can tap the sweet nectar neera from their trees and convert it into vinegar and jaggery. 2002). etc. Again. They ate the fish and used the liver oil to light lamps in the house after dark. belongs to the caste whose profession it is to climb coconut trees and harvest coconuts for tree owners. shells and handicraft. He recalls that his father used to catch Karatty or Trigger fish everyday from the reef. largely an outcome of the large and subsidised government sector. products provides increasing opportunities for income earning among the local fishers. 215 .

• Heavier reliance on tuna fishing • Increased reliance on imported food stuffs or other sources of protein • Food insecurity • Increasing reliance on tuna and pelagic fish species in diet • Women have less active role in livelihood as they did before in the coir production of the past. Now their involvement is limited to fish processing. they are constantly changing in response to direct and indirect influencing factors. CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES Island and considers the causes of those changes and the impacts on peoples livelihoods (Table 10). turtle. shark • Introduction of legislation restricting shingle collection to permit only. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND IMPACTS ON AGATTI ISLAND Changes in reef-derived livelihood Decline in subsistence fishing species (variety and size) Contributing factors • Absolute numbers of lagoon fishers has increased leading to over-fishing • Reef degradation Impact on strategies and outcomes • Some conflict between the two groups of Bala Fadal fishing operations (Section 4. cowries. Livelihoods are dynamic. • Reduced income and food security • Loss of livelihood opportunities • Loss of equitable access to resource • Poor households reliant on extraction of banned or licensed reef resources and without accessible alternative.5 CHANGES.1. This has now been replaced by a complete ban on shingle collection Increasing control of resource use 216 .5). undertake illegal extraction • Disfranchisement of local resource users from ownership and control of natural resources Increase in tuna fishing and associated bait fishery • Government policy to expand tuna fishery • Subsidies for boats and fuel • Introduction of new technology • Tuna fishing and processing included in school curriculum Degradation of reef • Increasing fishing pressure due to population growth • Crown-of-Thorns starfish • Coral bleaching • Channel blasting • Increasing environmental concerns of central government • Increasing recognition of environmental problems • Introduction of legislation banning harvest of all endangered species. which impact upon the strategies households are able to adopt and the ultimate outcomes of those strategies. Changes to livelihoods on Agatti Island can be separated into either those which have increased livelihood options or those that have reduced livelihood options. The following section describes the key changes to reef-based livelihoods on Agatti TABLE 10 A SUMMARY OF KEY CHANGES IN REEF-DERIVED LIVELIHOODS. such as live coral. • Poorer households with no access to government subsidies and new tuna fishing opportunities marginalised • Increase in income and food security for tuna fishing households • Decline in lagoon fishery • Increased coastline erosion • Changing geomorphology and current patterns have changed distribution patterns of certain fish species.

fresh fish.TABLE 10 (CONTINUED) Contributing factors • Increased employment opportunities in government service supported by policy to provide employment to at least one person from every household • Improved education has increased access to government jobs Impact on strategies and outcomes • Increase in disparity between rich and poor • Less reliance amongst high income households on fishery activities or direct interaction with reef for subsistence • Increase in local market for fish and income opportunities for fishery-dependent households • Loss of status of traditional fishery jobs amongst the young and increase in number of disenchanted unemployed youth • Breakdown of traditional community values • Increasing shell collection as recreation or hobby • Illegal collection by poor households still reliant on shells as a source of income Changes in reef-derived livelihood Increase in average household income Decrease in reliance on shell collection for income • Cash income from other sources especially government sector jobs • Fall in market demand for shells • Legislation banning collection • Government actively promotes reef. This is accentuated by changing value systems associated with increasing prosperity and the breakdown of the traditional Tharawad joint family.and water sports-based tourism development • Increasing exposure of island administration staff to scuba diving • Increase in literacy. in the government and tourism sectors. new technology and high investments. the impact of these changes has been increasing marginalisation and income disparity between themselves and those who have accessed the new opportunities. subsidies or investment and increasing levels of education.g. resort employment. leading to greater inequity as some prosper at the cost of ignoring the larger family. government and tourism sectors.1 INCREASING LIVELIHOOD OPTIONS Increasing livelihood opportunities have arisen in the fisheries. who do not have the skills. education and supported by the availability of the vast and productive reef and ocean resource. for the poorer households. e. Similarly. new opportunities have been promoted in tuna and deep sea fishing. However. subsidies. on the negative side. increasing livelihood options have been the outcome of supportive policies. financial resources or social networks to access new opportunities. and overall have resulted in a rise in average household income on the islands. On the positive side. communications and overall development of islands Increase in tourism related opportunities • Increase in opportunities for tourism-related activities. in sectors demanding high levels of education. This in turn has increased the purchasing power of local islanders and resulted in the growth of local markets for local goods and thus additional opportunities for other islanders to supply this demand. driven by fishery policy. shells and handicraft production. as well as improved communication. infrastructure and overall development on the islands. particularly in the government sector. In fisheries. increasing livelihood options have brought about increased food and income security for those households able to access the new opportunities. The impact of these changes has been both positive and negative for the lives of the islanders. prosperous households have tended to become divorced from the reef 217 . But limited benefit to poorer households without appropriate skills and social connections • Increase income security for those households benefiting from tourism-related employment or markets • Women lose control of household income Loss of female interactions with fishery • Displacement from fish processing activities 5. With new opportunities.

Recognising the construction needs of the islanders and because no other building material is available on the islands. which means 8–10 tons of shingle is required per house constructed. environmental and political factors. It is therefore safe to assume that at least some islanders collect exactly the amount they need. In 1996 a notification was passed that people could collect shingle by obtaining a permit from the environment wardens. At BOX 12 LEGISLATING THE USE OF CORAL FOR CONSTRUCTION The 1972 Wild Life Protection Act was the first to include corals as a protected species. giving rise to more secure and stable livelihoods for some sectors of the community. The recent change in legislation. They made the point that no person had ever collected a shingle or boulder from there and yet it disappeared. Currently around 12 people supplement their livelihood income through shingle collection alone. illicit collection of boulder coral continues. More recently. The focus of this decline has been the reef-based activities as a consequence of social.This act has been amended in 1974.2 DECLINING LIVELIHOOD OPTIONS Simultaneous to the emergence of new livelihood opportunities has been a decline or loss of existing livelihood options. Island stakeholders explain that one needs a minimum of 400–500 bags of shingle in order to construct a modest two-bedroom house.. he had collected around 300 to complete his house construction. irrespective of what is allowed in the permit. Non-permit holders would be regarded as offenders.4) per bag. The islanders said that before the law people only collected the amount of shingle they needed for their own construction purposes. but continued the ban on the collection of coral boulders. They want an explanation for the disappearance of the small Parralli III Island.3–0. who lack the resources to access the new opportunities. 5.The applicants had applied for double that quantity.1) per 20 kg bag that they wished to collect. while increasing livelihood options have clearly brought benefits. license arrangements for the collection of shingle has been abandoned and instead shingle collection has been totally banned. another notification was issued which stated that people wishing to collect shingle need to apply for a permit and remit Rs 5 (~US$0. Field observations show that shingle collection has carried on regardless. Despite this.When the houses break the shingle will return to the island for island building and hence there can be no harm in collecting shingle. in other words the poorer households. In 1996. This is part of a cycle of life and is utilised for construction on the islands itself. (From: Hoon et al.These people tend to hoard shingle and sell it at a premium. By a conservative estimate this would mean that at least 200 tons of shingle are collected and used within the island annually. Shingle sells for Rs 15–20 (~US$0. 1986 and 2001 to include more species from coral reefs for protection under Schedule A.The administration therefore no longer has a record of how much shingle is collected nor receives as much remittance for shingle collection. In 1998. Islanders also estimate that a minimum of 20 houses are constructed every year. 2002) 218 . In 1997. has made some locals very angry and only time will tell what will happen. A man who had recently built his house stated that while he had received a permit for 150 bags. only some have the privilege of collecting shingle. This estimate is supported by the data collected by monitoring shingle collection. the Lakshadweep administration modified this ruling to permit collection of coral shingle for house construction on a permit basis.The community must now either continue collection illegally or purchase expensive alternative construction materials.resources since they do not have the intimate daily connection and consequently they have lost the knowledge and awareness evident amongst the poorer and more traditional resource users. Now because of the permit system. Thus. who often remain unemployed and disenchanted. It is interesting to note that the number of permit applicants abruptly declined. Local perceptions The people perceive coral shingle collection as their right and are unable to see how this can destroy the island. but excluding other members of the community. Traditional livelihood options of fishing and coconut cultivation have begun to lose their status amongst the educated youth. Each bag of shingle weighs 20 kg. 45 permits were issued to collect 11 400 bags of shingle. completely prohibiting shingle collection. 22 permits were issued to collect a total of 4325 bags of shingle. the benefits have not been equitable. They explain that shingle is like the broken and dead twigs and branches of a tree that wash ashore.

which provide an important share of household income for a small number of poor households has become illegal. legislation has banned the collection of many reef products and restricted the collection of others to licence arrangements. Consequently. there is often no choice but to continue the activity illegally. the collection of coral for house construction has also been prohibited. national and local level recognition of and concern for the decline in coral reef resources has led to the increasing emergence of legislation controlling and restricting exploitation of the reef resource. Bala Fadal (Section 4.1. without a viable alternative source of construction material or income. 219 . Global.the very root of this change is population growth. this has restricted traditional livelihood options and for the poor households. resulting in increasing demands on the local resources and competition for access. e. with increasing risk of fines or punishment. such as coral bleaching. High demand on the nearby resources has led to over-fishing and combined with other disturbances. In the same way. livelihood options such as cowrie collection.5). which has led to the emergence of some conflicts between the large collaborative fishery operations. On Agatti Island. channel blasting and outbreaks of Crown-of-Thorns starfish. As described in Box 12. this has led to the degradation of near-shore reef resources and declines in reef and lagoon fishing and associated food and income security.g.

young and old. are also affecting the reef. in the past this was principally associated with coconut cultivation. Many of these households are becoming increasingly marginalised from society. Increasingly. reef dependence has changed and they often no longer directly exploit the reef for food. the coral reef resources are critical in providing livelihood stability. this support has made significant developments in terms of health and education standards and has greatly improved communications and links to the mainland. For the poor reef stakeholders. who can directly harvest from the reef by foot. the growing population is increasing pressure on the shallow reef resources through its increasing demand for reef products. which are beginning to breakdown. this has now been replaced by the pole and line tuna fishery. these typically include: those households no longer supported by the traditional extended family. For the more prosperous households. Reef resources are the source of food. income. who depend on the reef resource. Despite the limited externalities impacting reefs in the Lakshadweep Islands. The total population of these islands is relatively small. Furthermore. which is considered the mainstay of the islands’ economy. The income and food provided by the reef are essential for the sustenance and survival of poor households throughout the year. However. however. For the poor households on Agatti Island and Lakshadweep as a whole. breakdown. such as coral boulder collection. government sector jobs are replacing traditional livelihood opportunities. with over 60.6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS in skills in traditional livelihoods. An estimated 15% of households in the Lakshadweep Islands are considered to be poor. have brought increasing prosperity to the islands. reefs and submerged banks. which surround 36 low lying coralline islands. Natural resources form the basis for the traditional economy of the people. this may be the only way to cope with the loss of their husbands or the main household provider. keeping these households above the poverty line. through a local administration. such as the elderly or female-headed households. forming the land on which they live and protecting the shoreline and their homes from erosion. An emerging tourism industry also offers some opportunities for islanders. The Lakshadweep Islands may at first glance not appear to be a location where poverty and reef-related issues are of significance. but the population density is high and rapidly increasing. and those educated but unemployed and lacking 220 . the reef provides a keystone resource for subsistence during the rough weather of the monsoon and as a supplement to other sources throughout the year. as a result of the rapidly growing population and increasing overall prosperity. and the traditional family support systems and matrilineal property rights. However. and damage associated with certain resource use patterns. such as channel dredging. The people of Lakshadweep are officially classified as a Schedule Tribe and the islands are governed as a Union Territory directly from the Central Government in Delhi. for which the islands are famous. people lacking in education and dependent on traditional livelihoods of fishing and coconut cultivation. the surrounding coral reefs are fundamental to their lives.000 people occupying only 11 of the islands. building materials and medicines. As a result of this status and the relative isolation of the islands. as traditional livelihoods lose their status amongst the young and educated. But at the same time they have also brought increasing inequality and poverty for those who cannot access government support systems or new opportunities. Impacts from development activities. For all the islanders of Lakshadweep. For many of these households the reef is a vital safety net. who have obtained government employment. amounting to just over 26km2 of land area. In recent years. they provide bait fish for the tuna fishery and are the source of considerable knowledge. encouraged by government policy to provide employment to at least one member of every household. but rely on others to supply reef fish in growing local markets. through direct employment in resorts or indirectly through the resort’s demand for local products. high levels of health and education and government support and subsidies. Livelihood opportunities for the Lakshadweep islanders are limited. reef resources remain vital. For households just above the poverty line. the government provides significant support and subsidies to the islands’ infrastructure and economy. and who are now no longer sustained by society’s traditional norms and extended families. the availability and accessibility of reef resources for poor households is changing. allowing them to survive and cope in periods of hardship. the reefs have suffered from infestations of the Crown-of-Thorns The Lakshadweep Islands lying off the west coast of India are comprised of coral atolls. those without able bodied labour. with limited alternative opportunities available and an inability to fully take advantage of the availing government support systems. For women. skills and traditional myths and songs shared amongst the men and women. Well resourced institutions.

The extensive knowledge of local islanders of their surrounding reef resources has greatly benefited this participation. LCRMN and CARESS funding has supported training and monitoring programmes focused on the Lakshadweep reefs and its users. increasing legislation has emerged to control and restrict resource use. Through the GCRMN.starfish and were badly damaged by the 1998 coral bleaching event. As a result of reef degradation and concern for biodiversity conservation. which has the potential to enhance the role of the local communities in the management of their surrounding resources and ensure that the objectives of management reflect their needs and aspirations. 221 . prohibiting extraction of many reef products. ICRMN. However. with continued population growth and global warming these changes increasingly threaten the security of all islanders. the growing concern for the coral reef resources has led to efforts to improve our understanding of changes to reef and reef use and apply this to more effective management. which have promoted the participation of local communities. These changes have disproportionately affected the poorer households who typically have no other viable alternative to reef use to fall back on. and the development of programmes focused on enhancing the livelihood security of the poor. At same time. These efforts must continue to be supported and strengthened by a better understanding of the poverty-related reef issues on the islands.

7 REFERENCES AND NOTES Mannandiar NS. Mohan M. pp 1–51. Melacheris-(land workers). REFERENCES ASDO (Additional Subdivisional Officer). Government Press. In: Hoon V (ed. 4 Fishing-related expenses includes cost of diesel. In: Pillai CSJ. 1990. UT Lakshadweep.). UT Lakshadweep. BOBP. CARESS. Nayak S. CMFRI. Heidman A. Oxford IBH. New Delhi. Taxonomic and Ecological Survey of the Lakshadweep for Perumal Marine Park. BOBP. Shamsuddin VM. Moosakoya B. Shamsuddin VM. Kavaratti. Koya SS and Ali KS. NOTES 1 This distinction of having to be born in the islands to avail ST status causes an identity problem for those children who are born in mainland hospitals. Thirty Years of Fisheries Development in Lakshadweep. pp 1–22. Kavaratti. pp 1–83. Chennai. India. 3 Source: Directorate of Medical Services. Zological Survey of India. November. Secretariat. Lakshadweep Islands – Case Study. —— (date not known) Lakshadweep and its people: 1994–1999. MCRC. pp 1–47. 222 . Dept of Marine Sciences and Marine Biotechnology. Sci. 1991. CMFRI Mar. pp 1–90. India. Proceedings of Regional Workshop on the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Coral Reefs. Raheem A. 1997. pp 80–95. 2002. Thangal EP. Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Nicobar and Lakshadweep: An Environmental Impact Assessment. Bulletin No 43: 1–66. Kochi. Andaman. pp 257. Kavaratti. CMFRI. Condition. Seshadri CV. Coral reef mapping of the Lakshadweep Islands. Kochi. UT Lakshadweep. Administration of Lakshadweep. Raghukumar C. Srivastava G. pp 375. Wealth Characteristics in Lakshadweep. 1986. Infor. Rodrigues CL. India. The more powerful group could also take advantage of these affirmative action policies and because of their connection and astuteness were the first to take adavantage of the policies. Ahmedabad. Konarak Publications. pp 172. Hoon V. Pillai CSG. etc. MFIS No 68 Special Issue on Lakshadweep. Hoon V. Fish Catch Records Raw Data for the Year 2000. 2002. CMFRI. 2 The additional subdivisional office in Agatti gave 870 as the total number of households during the study period. Mohammad Ali MC. Marine Biodiversity. of Koyas-(landowners). Lakshadweep Administration Department of Fisheries. 1996. Secretariat. 1986. Basic Statistics 1998–1999. Status of Coral Reefs in Lakshadweep. 1989. In: Swaminathan MS (ed. India. 1924. Remote Sensing Applications group. CMFRI. GOI. Personal communication. pp 19–43. Chennai. Socio-Economic Assessment and Monitoring of Coral Reefs. Tajunnissa NM. T and E Ser. Special Issue on Lakshadweep. Dive Instructor. Pillai CSG. Goa University. Socio-economic Dimensions and Action Plan for Conservation of Coastal Bio-resources based on an understanding of Anthropogenic Threats: Site Lakshadweep. Agatti Island. Fish. India. DST&E. MSSRF. Energy Studies of Island Communities with an Emphasis on Time/Energy Availability for Women’s Needs. CMFRI. MSSRF. Gazetteer of India: Lakshadweep. 2002. —— 1986. Marine Living Resources of the UT of Lakshadweep. 1977. Kochi. Serv. A Short Account of the Laccadive Islands and Minicoy. Retd Director of Agriculture. Coral Reefs of India: Their Conservation and Management. ZSI. Livingstone PP. Proceedings of Regional Workshop on the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Coral Reefs. 1989. Wafer MVM. Conservation and Management. pp 7–13.). Personal communication. Madras. Environmental Assessment of the Ninth Five Year Plan 1997–2002. Hajara A. The coral fauna of Lakshadweep. Coral Mortality in Reefs: The Cause and Effect – A Central Concern for Monitoring. Ayoob AE. appendices pp 29. gear. UT Lakshadweep. Shukoor A. CMFRI. Private communication. Proc Indian Acad. nets. Kochi. Madras. Marine Fisheries Research in Lakshadweep. 1990. and boat repayment. Menon NG (eds). Pillai GCS. Koya SI. —— 1989. Administration of the UTL. Focus Group Discussion. 5 The ‘Blanket’ category of scheduled tribe for Lakshadweep did not take into consideration the local hierarchy or caste system. despite the fact that both the child’s parents may be natives of the UT of Lakshdweep. Site – Agatti Island. Lakshadweep Administration Department of Fisheries. State Fauna Series 2. Goa. 1986. GOI. Saldhana CJ. 1997. Department of Planning and Statistics. Research and Management Status. UT Lakshadweep. Bulletin No 43 Marine Living Resources of the UT of Lakshadweep. Bahuguna A. Gender Dimensions in Biodiversity Management. Pillai PP. Coral Reefs in India: Review of their Extent. 2002. Monograph Series on the Engineering of Photosynthetic Systems Vol 31. Space Applications Centre. 1997. Hoon V. 2001. 2000.).) Suppl. MFIS No 68: 1–256. Banagram Island. Kochi. subsidies. CARESS. Jasmine S. Case study guidelines: Reef Livelihoods Assessment project. IMM and SPEECH. Cheriyakoya MI. —— 1998. James PSBR. India. Moosa OG. In: Hoon V (ed. 1994. —— 2000. Calcutta. pp 1–68. 1997. Aboobacker PP. Ellis RH. Coral Reefs of India. pp 83–86. 1996. 2002. 68: 38–41. (Animal Sci/Plant Sc. pp 179–195. CARESS. Hoon V. Department of Fisheries. pp 122. B1–B26. UT Lakshadweep. 2002.

Reef operation (Normal night) xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xx xx x xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxx xxx xx x x x x Near entrances same as above Drag netting 1. Theku Mepeda Thada Theku Keepada Thala Keepada Thala Police club Aar Mepeda Thaliya aar Fibre Factory aar Aadaniya Palliya aar Tourist HUT. Sturgeon Fish xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx Kalpittiya Purakum puram Airport aar Kallukakke aar Chadi para aar 223 .Vadakom Thala. Jetty area Location Gender Reef related activity Appal Kuthal Octopus hunting Local name Appal Kol Kavi Chana Kol English name Iron rod Hooked iron rod Local name Appal Bala Beeshal Cast netting 1. all reef areas. FISHING GROUNDS AND FISHING TECHNOLOGY Gears used Types of reef product Common or scientific name Octopus Ranking Fish abundance Thod. Keela muna Kalpittiya Purukkumpar Ujrayya chal Chekina Palliya chal Pittiya Chal Koilatha chal Kunthale par Tower Aar Parrapp 2.Airport Aar Beliyodatha aar 2. Bala Attal Attal bala Olabala-2 Balayil Kotta Sandex Drag net Coconut frond rope Coir rope Bag for fish Shoes Chemmali Kilukkomk Oola Manakom Chandy Naithala Snapper Emperors Gar Fish Goat Fish Callyodan spp.ANNEX 1 FOLK TAXONOMY WITH REFERENCE TO FISHES. Bala Adiyal Shore netting Adibala Baliyal Kotta Drag net Coir rope Bag for fish Furachi Kulluval Manakom Mural Ouram Fiyada Oola Thidra Bangada Oram Lammam Mala Munna.Aliv Patanava. Shore operation Beeshi Bala Kotta Sandex Cast net Kulluval Coconut leaf bag Pair of slippers/shoes Fiyada Manakam Furachi Nillalam Mookam Ball Meen Thidira Oola Poonchi Bangada Phrungunny Kanakaduam Chemmali Manakom Varipad Fala Manjam Oola Cerrengids Stellatus — Goat Fish Whip Fin Majjara Sturgeon Fishes Thread Fishes — Mullets Gar Fish Sea Chubs Cerangids Squirrel/Soldier Fish — Snapper Goat Fish Sturgeon Fishes Sturgeon Fishes Emperor Gar Fish Whip Fin Majjara C. Stallatus Mulloidichthy S Half Beak — — Gar Fish Mullets Cerangids Rabbit Fish — xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxx x x x x x Mela muna. Purathpalliya Aar Kunnena Aar. Balliyaillatha Makkala Chal. Pallia Aar.

Gears used Types of reef product Common or scientific name Sturgeon Fish Squirrel/Soldier Fish — — Big Eyes Emperor Emperor Red Snapper Sturgeon Fish Sturgeon Fish Callyodon sp Cerrangids Gar Fish Trigger Fish Box Fishes Snapper Callyodon sp Barracudas Half Beak Rabbit Fish — — Seer Fish Shark Shark Shark Guitar Fish Shark — Black Tip Shark Merlin Sword Fish Indian Dog shark Sting Ray Electric Ray Ranking Fish abundance xxxx xxx xxx xx xx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxx xx xx xx x x x xxxxx xxx Location Gender Reef related activity Local name English name Local name Karukom Perunganny Kankaduvam Lattom Kulakkathi Ujra palliya Aar Vedimeunna Aar Groundina aar Adiyana Palliya aar Kunnina aar Melacheri Cheera Niyava Kupp Pattiya kal Thod Cheriya Perumon Parrappu Palliya aar Billom Randikada Bangaram Kaiyna Mepada Tharam Keepada Tharam 3. Eriyal Thangees-4 sets Lines Choondal Kathi-1 Sanji Era Eayem Hooks Knife Chemmali Kilukom Kulluval Metty Fally Oola Furachi Chammam Malanji Bait Lead sinker Snapper Emperor/Pig Face Bream Cerangids Emperor/Pig Face Bream Trigger Fish Gar Fish Cerangids Reef Cod — xxxxx xxxx xx x x x x x x Alive (keela alive) Cheeraniyava chal Jetty-1 Keelava reef Airport aar Light house aar Vadakkella muna Ujrra palliya aar Shekina palliya aar 224 . thani Thula-1 Boat Oar Harpoon pole Sail Sail rod (mast) Harpoon Kalla churav Triple hook harpoon Manabalkody Single hook harpoon Maram Churav — Inner hook Wooden fish — Stick with iron hook Hooks Twine Bag and water Sail Ola meen Kudirameen Maram Thirandi Kottar Thalafad Koompuram Valiyathala Valiyakon Paraliya Vadakom Tharom Majeli Chadam Melaba Kandampar All Barana Paraliya keel xxx x x x x Hand-line-shore 1. Bala Fadal Big ody-2 Olabala-45’ Balayil-50 m Thani Adibala Purabala Kandali bala Boats Coconut frond rope Coir rope Water Cast net Drag net Drag net Metty Chemmali Karukom Naithala Chandi Kulluval Oola Falli Thomp Fulariyam Feesom Kolas Mural Oram Ilimeen Chemaniyam Ayakura Shurav Firuthaliam Manachurav Thirandi Churav Chadum Pokk Harpooning Odam-1 Thula-1 Kalu-3 Fah-1 Kumb-1 Uli-1 Kood Uli-1 Ott Uli-2 Marakalu-1 Akathuli-1 Faravakol Ove-1 Kavi Choondal Cotton Nool Kotta.

Boat Ret-1 Bella Chala Madam Chala Bodhi 225 .Gears used Types of reef product Common or scientific name Ranking Fish abundance xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxx xx xx xx x x xx x xxxxx xxx xx Location Gender Reef related activity Hand-line with boat 2. Poocha pitty xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx Ayakura pitti. Kosy pitti x x x x x x x x x x x Poonina pitti. Chal Manja Chala Rahiya Sprattilloids japonicus xxxxxxxxxx xxxx Bangaram. Moosa bar Mandi. Kunninauda Paraliya Keepada Tharam Hooks Bait net Coconut frond rope — — — — Coir ropes Ravundi Choora Latti Cheviyam Kindel Choora Fallam Choora Little Tunny Little Tunny Big Eye Tuna Yellow Fin Symnosarda sp Oori Pidikal or Chala Pidika Bait fish collection Chalabala-1 Olabala-2. Kol Attikal Fishing with rod/log Kol Thangees Choondal Kathi.Thekila and Vadekila pitty Aminyala odam Meena pitty Petty. Chalakori. Fisheries jetty Melamunna Papada palliya aar Kunninauda Choot Kathich Kuthal Choot (Light and sword) Kathi Kotta Chavalam Sandex Ferunganny Kankaduvam Mural Oola Keram Manakom Nilalam Chamman Varipad Manakom Kilukom Squirrel/Soldier fish Squirrel/Soldier fish Half Beak Gar Fish Gar Fish Goat Fish — Reef Cod Sturgeon Fish Goat Fish Emperor/Pig Face Bream Skip Jack xxxxx xxxxx xxx xx xx xx xxxxx xxx xx x x Keelaba (Ern lagoon) Kalpittiya Purakumpuram Chal Kalmoodal (Trapping over boulders) Kalmudna bala Kotta Sandex 1 jodi Boulder covering net Small cast net Bag Pair of slippers Keelapaar (Ern reef) Kalpittiya Purukam puram Choora Bakkal Pole and line tuna fishing Pablo boat Choorakol-12 Choora Choondal-20 Chalabala-1 Olabala-2 Challapetty-1 Chalabatty-2 Othikom Chudithom Balayil-5 Mechanised boat Pole Ambalmugal Mas Choora xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xx Kotta 3 sides Keelamoola Paraliyada thalapad Bilangina moola Anchu Mottam Mannkunam. Bangada pitti Agatti pitty. Billatha-2 sides P’par. Othikom. kotta Wooden pole Lines Lead sinkers Knife and bag Flame torch Knife Bag Kuth Shoes Main Jetty. Bakkal Local name English name Local name Metty Thangees-6 sets Lines Choondal Odam or barkass Kavi Era Anchor Thandu 2-3 sets Thani Kathi Kutty eaayam Hooks Boat Hooked pole Bait Anchor Water Knife Small lead sinker Emperor/Pig Face Bream Chemmali Snapper Manjam Brown Reef Cod Chammam Reef Cod Kulluval Cerangids Fulariyam Snapper Palli Trigger Fish Shabudu Kallam — Oola Gar Fish Karatty Trigger Fish Kallalam — Fankuluval Bankada Feeyada Trigger Fish Trigger Fish — Aliv Cheeraniyava Thod Baliya Bander Parrappu Manjathakkal Mettiyakal Chammanalia chal Uppathal chal 3.

Gears used Types of reef product Common or scientific name Ranking Fish abundance Location Gender Reef related activity Kavady Edukkal Thod Cowry collection Local name English name Iron rod Local name Black Katty Kavadi Bellakavady Baliya Kavady Pulli Kavadi Thirandy Churav Atta Churav Bella Churav Poocha Choorav Nayyam Churav Meen Churav Balam Churav Mara Churav Komban Churav Shirak Balam Piruthaliyam Snake Head Money Cowrie Tiger Cowrie Tiger Cowrie Guitar Fish Shark Shark Shark Shark Shark Shark Shark Shark Shark Shark Small bag Shoes xxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xx x xxxxx xx x x x x x x x x x All reef Area. Bala Idal Shark fishing Mechanised boat 1/2” Nool Boyya Thirukkani Choondal Anchor Baliyal Bala 1.2” cotton twine Buoy Steel wire Hook Anchor Rope Net 226 . East of Kalpitti. mandiyauda Mulli Alivna Keepada Tharam Mankunnu Parali pitti Perumalapar Beliyapani Manjappar Cheriyapani Elikalpeni Bepidal.

197. 216–17 poverty 204–7 resources 208–10 vulnerabilities 203 age 31–3 Apo Marine Reserve. 197–9. 9. 65–6 Western Caribbean 6. 8–9. 63–4 poverty and 5–11. 17 consumers of coral reef products 3 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 26 coral/coral reef alternatives to mining. vulnerability to 45–6 impact of 41–5 China 65 clams. 201. 59 mining 17 natural events and 39 regional distribution 1 Eastern Africa 6. Mozambique 84–6 administrative setting 86 commercial links 86 culture 85 ecological setting 85 economic setting 86 finance 86 gender 85 geographic setting 84.INDEX Note: Page references in italics refer to Figures. 84 marine chart 85 poverty in 94. 208–15. 66–7 use of 16. 198. 94 227 . 17 CORDIO Participatory Fisheries Monitoring Programme (Kenya) 53 Costa Rica 66 Cuba 67 customary marine tenure (CMT) 25 customs 24–6 cyanide fishing 40. Philippines 50 awareness raising 53–4 Bangladesh 64 beliefs 24–6 Belize 66 Better Banana Programme (BBP) 56 biodiversity 12–14 Brunei 66 Cambodia 65 CARE Misali Island Conservation Project. 3 Cayman Islands 66 change causes of 38–41 future. Pemba. 41 decline. 8. 199 income generation 200 indirect influencing factors 214–15 livelihood opportunities 203. 200–2 employment 200 fishing 200–1. 216–19. 199. 7–8. Tanzania 53 Caribbean Coastal Area Management (CCAM) foundation 49 caste 33 categories of reef users 3. preventing 48–57 degradation 38–41 global distribution of 1. 43 cyclones 34 Darumba. giant 34 class 33 climate change 47 coastal protection 15 collaborative/co-operative management 49–50 Colombia 66 communal exploitation 24 community-based management 49 Comoros 63 conservation 26–7. those in bold refer to Tables Agatti Island. 7 South Asia 6. Lakshadweep administrative setting 202–3 direct influencing factors 211–14 ecological and economic setting 195. 2. 201 geographical and social setting 192. Sri Lanka 57 bleaching 39–40. 64–5 Southeast Asia 6. 41 construction materials 16.

139. 137 seasonality 138 shocks 138 trends 138 medicinal properties of marine species 133 market system 121 natural resources 121 poverty in 127–8. 8 immigration 36 income generation 16–17 228 . 135.social infrastructure 85 social setting 84–5 vulnerabilities and risks faced by the community 86 dependence on reefs 4 Diani Marine Reserve. 179 Global Environment Facility (GEF) funds 26 Global Programme of Action (GPA) for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities 26 global warming 39. 121. 128. 120. 19 fishing techniques 19. 119 community context 122–5 culture 121 demographic statistics 118. interactions with 15 ecotourism 36. loss of 140 administrative setting 121. 118 direct influencing factors 134–6. 22–3 Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) Action Programme on the Promotion of Fisheries from reefs 20–1 food security 43 gender 31–3 Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) 31. 119 economic setting 120 external factors controlling livelihood opportunities 121 field methodologies 144–5 indirect influencing factors 136–8. 125. 17 fishing craft 18. 141 reef livelihoods 129–38. 136 Guptapara. 14. 128. 124. 128 location 123 poverty in 127 Thavukadu 125. bait for 14. 126 beliefs 133 biodiversity 146 caste groupings 118. 52–3. 117 Idinthakalpudur 122–3. 134 organisations 135–6 policies 134–5 social relations 136 ecological and geophysical setting 119–20. 127. 141–2 resources 129–33 benefits to householders 130 declining 140 financial 131–2 human 132–3 natural 129–30 physical 130–1 social 133 safety net for female-headed households 138 social development statistics 118 social setting 117–19 study area 117–21. 37. 43. South Andaman Island 158–61 administrative setting 161 ecological and economic setting 158–61 geographical and social setting 158 poverty in 166–7. 41 government institutions 29 Great Barrier Reef (GBR) World Heritage Area 27 Gujarat Fisheries Central Cooperative Association 31 Gulf of Mannar case study 113–46 access. 56 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 56 Fish Aggregation Device 15 Fish Utilisation in India DFID-funded project 46 fisheries development 27–8 low entry cost 18 small-scale 14 tuna. 166 social infrastructure 160 Honduras 67 Human Development Index (UNDP) 4. 54. Kenya 44 diversity of fish products and markets 18–20 Dollar Fish 18 donor agencies 50 dynamite fishing 44 economic valuations 54–5 ecosystems. 128 village comparison table 122–3 wealth categories 128 vulnerabilities 126 Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve (GOMMBR) 31. 128. coastal. 124. 128 Indiranagar 124–5.

34. 216–17 resources 208–10 benefits to householders 208 financial 209–10 human 210 natural 208–9 physical 209 social 210 study area 191–3. 179 Indinthakalpudur 122–3. 124. 202–3 biodiversity 195 caste systems 204 community 197–203 demographic statistics 153 direct influencing factors 211–14. 124. 158 Malaysia 65 Maldives 64 Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) 54 Marine Protected Areas (MPA) 50 market 28–9 changes 38 trends 35 Maueia. 201 gender roles 202 government and private sector activities 202 ecological and geophysical setting 193–5 land 193–4 ocean 195 reefs and lagoons 193 economic setting 195–6 external factors controlling livelihood opportunities 203 folk taxonomy 223–6 geographical and social setting 197–9 indirect influencing factors 214–15. reef-dependent 12. 192 vulnerabilities 203 wealth characteristics 205 see also Agatti Island legislation 54. 48 conflict 43–4 declining benefits 41–2 direct influencing factors 12 diversifying and enhancing 57–8 exclusion 42–3 illegal 44 indirect influencing factors 12 strengthening 58 unsustainable 44–5 local knowledge 22. 31 International Coral Reef Monitoring Network (ICRAN) 4. 128. 128 Indiranagar 124–5. 23 Madagascar 63 Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park (MGMNP). Andaman Islands. 128. 212 institutions 213 organisations 213 policies 211–13 social relations 213–14 ecological and economic setting 200–2 agricultural activities 201–2 fishery activities 200–1. 192. 167 social infrastructure 163 Kal moodsal 19 kavebu (New Caledonia) 16 Kenya 63 keystone resource 3. 201. 128 Indonesia 65 information exchange 52–4 institutions 28–31 Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) systems 48–9. 216–18. 55 live food fish trade 40 livelihoods. Mozambique 81–4 administrative setting 83 229 . 50.India 64 Indian Coral Reef Monitoring Network (ICRMN) 27. 13 changing 41–5. 26 International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People 27 International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) 4 Jamaica 67 Junglighat. 52 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 47 International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) 4. 60 Kiribati 16 Lakshadweep case study 187–226 administrative setting 196. 193 poverty 204–7 reef livelihoods 208–15. India 157. South Andaman Island 162–4 administrative setting 164 ecological and economic setting 163–4 geographical and social setting 162–3 poverty in 167. 214 seasonality 214 shocks 214–15 trends 215 legislating for use of coral for construction 218 population 193. 37.

105 resources 95–9 benefits to householders 96 financial 98 human 98–9 natural 95. 7–8. 81 marine chart 82 poverty in 93. 7 230 . 78 poverty in 93–4 reef livelihoods 95–103. 10 regional distribution and 5–11. 102 seasonality 102–3 shocks 103 trends 103 infant mortality 78. 94 social infrastructure 87 social setting 87 vulnerabilities and risks faced by the community 90 Mexico 67 migration 36 monitoring programmes 52–3 Mozambique 63 Mozambique case study 77–111 biodiversity 111 community context 81–92 conservation 104 direct influencing factors 99–103. South Andaman Island 161–2 administrative setting 162 ecological and economic setting 161–2 geographical and social setting 161 poverty in 167. 7 Eastern Caribbean 9. Maueia. 78 external factors controlling livelihood opportunities 80 field methodologies 109–10 fisheries 104 indirect influencing factors 102–3.commercial links 83 culture 82 ecological setting 82–3 economic setting 83 finance 83 gender 82 geographic setting 81. 18 Pakistan 65 Panama 67 Panighat. reef-dependent 4–5. 104. 78 political and organisational setting 79 population 77–8. 100 organisation 101 policies 99–101 social relations 101 ecological and geophysical setting 78–9 economic setting 79–80 education and sanitation 78. 2 trends 35–6 within 100 km 3 Portland Bight Fisheries Management Council (PBFMC) 49 poverty. 167 social infrastructure 162 participation in reef management 51–2 Philippines 66 physical boundaries 16 policies 26–8 policy 62 population dependent on fisheries production 5 growth 38 living along coast 1. Messano navigation 15–16 Nicaragua 67 ornaments. 5. 93 social infrastructure 82 social setting 81–2 vulnerabilities and risks faced by the community 83–4 Mauritius 63 Mayanmar 65 Mayotte 63 medicinal contribution 22 Messano commercial links 89 culture 87 ecological setting 87–9 economic setting 89 finance 89 gender 87 geographic setting 87 political setting 89–90 poverty in 94. 59–62 Eastern Africa 6. 111 physical 95–8 social 99 social setting 77–8 study area 77–80 study village comparison table 90–2 see also Darumba. reef species as 17.

Mozambique 101. 60 sea cucumbers 18–19. 52. India 157 Reef Livelihoods Assessment (RLA) DFID-funded project Reef Check 52 resources of coral reefs benefits to the poor 59–60 contribution to the poor 12–26 financial 16–20 human 20–4 keystone 3. 35. for exchange and barter 20. Andaman Islands. 9. 21 property rights 55–6 Quirimbas National Park. 8–9. reef. 104. 54. 52 Tanzania 64 technology change 38 231 . 166 reef livelihoods 164–5. 58 Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) 12. Panighat South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) 40 Sri Lanka 65 stakeholders. 34. 40 seasonality 33–4 seaweed cultivation 45. 37. 152 study area 151–7. 34. 59 structural adjustment 28 Sumilon marine reserve. 152 village comparison 159–60 vulnerabilities 164 see also Guptapara. Junglighat. 12 products. 10 private enterprise 28–9 productivity 12–14. indigenous 27 rituals 24–6 safety net 3. 9 Western Caribbean 6. 20.South Asia 6. 4. 8 South Pacific 9–11. 172 institutions 172–3 organisations 173 policies 171–2 social relations 173 ecological and geophysical setting 153–4 climate 154 coral reefs 153–4 forests 154 geology 154 topography 154 economic setting 154–6 forestry and agriculture 154–5 marine fisheries 155–6. 8. 168–74. coral reef 3–4. 60 natural 12–15 physical 15–16 social 24–6 Reunion 63 rights. 103 Seychelles 64 shark fishing 19–20 shell money 20 SHIRIKISHO 55 Singapore 66 skills. 107 Rani Jhansi Marine National Park (RJMNP). Philippines 50 Sustainable Coastal Livelihoods (SCL) DFID-funded Project 6. 174 seasonality 173–4 shocks 17 trends 174 market system 121 migration 177 natural resources 121 poverty in 166–7. 157 tourism 155 field methodologies 181 fisheries development 176–7 household questionnaire 182–6 indirect influencing factors 173–4. diversity of 22–4 social relations 31–3 Somalia 64 South Andaman Island case study 147–86 administrative setting 156–7. 157 community context 158–65 conservation 177 culture 121 demographic statistics 153 direct influencing factors 171–3. 11 Southeast Asia 6. 175–6 resources 168–71 benefits to householders 168 financial 170 human 170–1 natural 168–70 physical 170 social 171 social setting 151–3 indigenous groups 151 settler population 151–3.

18 Torres Strait treaty (1976) 27 trade development 27–8 traditional management systems 29–31 traditions 24–6 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) Agenda 21 26 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 26 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 26 Regional Seas Programmes 31 Vietnam 66 vulnerability. changing 60 Wakatobi National Park. 128. Eastern Indonesia 43 World Bank 26 World Conservation Union (IUCN) 31 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) 26 232 . 125. 128 tools. reef species as 17.Thailand 66 Thavukadu 125.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful